1920-05-31

Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: I beg to lay on the Table
the final report, together with a number of interim reports, of the Munitions Resources Commission. I understand that there is a sufficient supply of these reports to enable each hon. member to obtain a copy. I also beg to lay on the Table copy of an Order in Council dissolving the commission, which has now completed its work.



COPY OF ORDER IN COUNCIL TABLED.

[Stage Direction]
P.C. No. 1005, dated May 20, 1920, resipect-' ing engagement of seamen in the Royal Canadian Navy.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 151, to amend the Northwest Game Act.
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The amendment is
merely to change the seasons for the hunting of certain animals in the Northwest Territories, in one case to make them comply with the advancing sun, and in another case to make them the same as in British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR * MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 152, to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


Arthur Meighen: The purpose of this amendment is to enlarge the opportunities of placer mining in the Yukon. The Yukon has been pretty well developed to its capacity, or rather, I should say, as that might be a dangerous statement, that it has been developed so far that now the prosipect of the placer mining worker is not so alluring as it was. This Bill enlarges the area on new creeks and old creeks over which the miner may prospect and enlarges also the rights for which he may record.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 148 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lockhart Pierce Sutton.-Mr. Doug, las (Strathcona).

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: May I ask my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, what is the object of the present conference in Ottawa between the delegates of the West Indies and the Canadian Government? Is the object purely a commercial one, or is there something else?


Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The object is briefly as follows: In 1912, a conference was held which resulted in the arrangement of a ten years' reciprocal trade agreement between Canada and the West Indies. That agreement has still two years to run. Transport and cable facilities were also arranged for at the same conference. It has been considered wise that we should meet together a little in advance of the time when the old arrangement would expire, to take into consideration exactly the same subjects, so what is being considered, and what will be considered, at the present conference is, first, the trade relations of the two sections of the Empire as regards preference and objects or lists of preference; second, the improvement of transport facilities, both as to passengers and freights, making them

more uniform, and, if possible, more widely distributed, and more commodious; third, the improvement of cable facilities, which have been very poor during the past year or two, and which it is necessary to have improved in the interests of trade and communication. Those are the three matters, and those alone, which are under consideration.
Mr. LEM1EUX:	With your permission,
Mr. Speaker, I should like to be allowed to implement my question. I see by the press that there is quite a campaign in favour of the political annexation of the West Indies to Canada. Could my right hon. friend give the House any information he may have on the subject, or has he given us all the information?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I thought I met my hon. friend's question when I explained the three objects of the conference, and said that those, and those alone, were the objects of the conference. The Government is not responsible for individual or associated campaigns, real or fictitious, for annexation.



NEWSPRINT SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
["I may inform my hon. friend\nthat I have no information in the matter apart from what has 'been reported in the public press."]
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: May I ask the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) whether he has received any communication from the United States Government relative to the appointment of a commission to inquire into the matter of newsprint, that is to say, into the pulp and paper question, and, if so, whether any action has been taken, and whether any papers which there may be in connection with the matter will be brought down?


Robert Laird Borden: I may inform my hon. friend
that I have no information in the matter apart from what has 'been reported in the public press.



[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 128 (from the Senate), for the relief of Francis Charles Dean.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 129 (from the Senate), for the relief of John James Garrison.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 130 (from the Senate), for the relief of Dora Lumsden MacLaurin.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 133 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edith Sarah Bell.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 134 (from the Senate), for the relief of Albert Graham Elson.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 132 (from the Senate), respecting the Army and Navv Veterans in Canada. -Mr. Blake.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 136 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Lyon Lincoln Cobbin.- Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. W. B. COLE.

Mr BROUILLARD:: 1.	Of what material is the flooring in the centre of the new Commons Chamber composed, and where did it originally come from?
2.	What price was paid for the said flooring per unit of measure, or of weight?
3.	What material was used to fill in the spaces between the boards in the said floor, and where did this filling originally come from?
4.	What price was paid for the said filling per unit of measure, or of weight?
5.	What was the total cost of the said floor laid in position, and before being covered by a carpet?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Teak with small ebony strips; the teak is imported from India; the ebony cannot trace origin of this particular lot, the tree is found in India, Burmah, South Africa and West Indies. This floor was purchased in the regular manner from wholesale lumber dealers by the contractor who manufactured and laid it. It is impossible to state the exact origin of the materials.
2.	$1.74 per superficial foot.
3.	Ebony, as answered by answer to question number 1.
4.	Average cost of ebony is 20 cents a pound or 4.2 cents per lineal foot which is included in unit cost of floor as given in answer to question number 2.
5.	$2,955.


TOWER OF PARLIAMENT BUILDING.
*Mr. BROUILLARD:: 
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	No arrangement has been made and there was no such suggestion.
3.	4, and 5. Answered by answer to question No. 2.


SCHOOL BUILDINGS ON INDIAN RESERVES.
Mr. JOHNSTON:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to erect any new school buildings on Indian reserves this year?
2.	If so, how many, on what reserves and in which federal constituency?
3.	Are the new buildings to replace the old buildings?
4.	If so, when were the old buildings erected?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government to erect a new school building on Gordon's Indian Reserve, Saskatchewan, this year?
6.	Is it a fact that an amount was placed in the Estimates in the year 1914 for the erection of a new school building on this reserve?
7.	Is it a fact that the present, school building is not large enough to accommodate nearly all the Indian children applying for admittance?
S. Is it a fact that the present building is unsanitary, without proper drainage, water supply, heating and ventilation?
9. Is it a fact that there were fifty-three cases of influenza amongst the pupils of this school during the winter of 1918-19, resulting in three deaths; that they have since had typhoid and other infectious diseases, and that there is not a spare room in the building for taking care of sick pupils?


Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Two. Peguis Reserve, Selkirk, Man.; Walpole Island Reserve, Kent, Ont.
3.	Perguis Center-a new school 'building. The other to replace an old building.
4.	Walpole Island, 1882.
5.	Final decision has not been made.
6.	Yes.
7.	A larger school building would be more serviceable.
8.	The present building was erected in 1894. Modern methods of drainage, etc., would, undoubtedly be more satisfactory.
9.	Only two deaths from influenza occurred during the winter of 1918-19, and two cases of typhoid were reported upon during November of last year.


BOA'RD OF PENSION COMMISSIONERS' EMPLOYEES.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	What is the nature of the employment, the respective salaries and war records of the following- gentlemen who are employed by the Pensions Board; K. Archibald, J. J. Patton, W. O. Gliddon, W. H. Measures, F. C. Baker, R. Belanger, J. C. Germain, J. Brown, C. Hagan, J. Little, J. B. Lewis, F. C. Knowles, L. King, J. Sleeman, J. Williams, A. C. McAnulty, J. Miller, C. Belton?
2.	Was the minister, during last session, asked as to whether the service of the said gentlemen could be dispensed with and their positions filled by returned soldiers?
3.	If so, why has such procedure not been carried out?
4.	How many female clerks are there in the said board who (a) receive a salary of less than $900, per annum, and (b) receive over $900 per annum?
5.	Could not the services of said female clerks be dispensed with and these positions filled by returned soldiers?


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: 1.	K. Archibald, director. and departmental solicitor, salary $4,800 per annum. No military service. Twice rejected, certified physically unfit by Standing Medical Board, Militia Headquarters, M.D. No. 4, Montreal, 25-10-16; J. A. W. Paton, assistant secretary, salary $2,900 per annum. No military service. Three times rejected; Dr. W. O. Gliddon, assistant medical adviser, salary $4,0.00 per annum. No military service. Neurological expert; W. H. Measures, principal clerk, salary $1,800 per annum. Service in Canada, C.O.T.C. 1-1-16 to 28-1-18. Seconded for duty in War Committee of the Cabinet, Ottawa, as chief clerk. Enlisted Toronto, 25-11-15. Kejected on account of congenital disease of the eyes. Joined Canadian Officers Training Co. (University of Toronto Contingent). Taken on subordinate staff M.D. No. 2, 1-1-16, employed as orderly room sergeant, School of Musketry, M.D. No. 2, and confidential clerk to Col. Vincent Massey. Employment willl cease 31-7-20; F. C. Baker, head clerk, salary $2,200 per lannum. Service with Permanent Force 7-10-10 to 30-4-18. Twelve years with Imperial Army, South African war, 1900-1902. Transfer to C.E.F., refused by (Militia Headquarters. Seconded to B.P.C., 1-10-16; E. Belanger, senior clerk, salary $1,700 per annum. No military .service; Capt. W. L. 'Germaine, head clerk, salary $2,900 per annum. Service in Canada, C.A.P.C. and C.A.S.C. 27-5-15 to 28-2-17 age 49, volunteered for service overseas but w'as retained in Canada for duty by the Military Authorities; H. J. Brown, accountant clerk, salary $1,100 per annum. Service in Canada, England and France 1-9-15 .to 25-11-18. Awarded M.M. C. Hagan, senior dlerk, salary $1,400 per annum. Service in Canada, Permanent Force 2-6-15 to 30-4-18. Physically unfit; J. Kittle, senior clerk, salary $1,800 per .annum. Service in Canada. Permanent Force and 72nd Battery. C.E.F., 12-6-16 to 28-12-17. Physically unfit; A. Lewis, senior clerk, salary $1,400 per annum. Service Permanent Force, Canada, 6-12-15 to 17-11-17 and E.A.F. Canada, 18-11-17 to 11-1-19; F. C. Knowles, not employed in B.P.C.; Capt. E. King, head clerk, salary $2,900. Enlisted Permanent Force 14-9-14. Discharged 23-1-17. Gazetted Captain Active Militia 24-1-17. Seconded for duty to B.P.C. Age 43; G. A. Sleeman, senior .statistical clerk, salary $1,700 per annum. No military service. Age ,53. Transferred .from Pensions and Claims Board to B.P.C. 1-10-16; P. Williams, clerk, .salary $1,100 per annum. No military service. Physically Imfit; C. A. McAnulty, senior clerk, salary $1,300 per annum. Under age but served in E.A.F. Canada 20-3-18 to 28-1-19; J. Miller, senior clerk, salary $1,300. Service Permanent Force, Canada, 22-4-16 to 1-4-18; Col. C. W. Belton, medical adviser, salary $5,000 per annum. Permanent Force, Canada, 17-6-17 to date.
2.	A request was made to the Government in the course of debate in the House of Commons that a careful inquiry he made into the matter of staff of the Board of Pension Commissioners with a view to replacing with men of overseas service, and who are capable, those members of the staff who had no overseas service.
3.	The services of several members of the staff who were not returned soldiers have been dispensed with since last .session. It is the policy of the Board of Pension Com-

misgionere ultimately to retain only returned soldiers in its employ, but the work in connection with demobilization required the retention of the men above mentioned who are thoroughly iconversant with pension work. None hut returned soldiers are now being engaged or have been engaged during the past year.
At present the male staff of the board over the age of 18 years numbers 305. Of this number 266 saw service overseas; 17 saw service only in Canada; 5 were medically unfit; 7 were in the Permanent Force; 5 were over military age; 1 was honourably exempted; 4 saw no service at all.
4.	(a) Number of female cleTks who receive a salary of less than $900 per annum, 542.
(b) Number of female clerks who receive a salary of over $900 per annum, 101.
5.	Any female clerks whose services can he dispensed with and their places filled by returned soldiers at a similar salary will be dispensed with. As many of these female clerks are stenographers and filing clerks their services are in most cases indispensable.
NEW PARLIAMiEINT BUILDINGS.


*Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	What was the total cost of the new Government station and heating- (plant on Cliff and Vittoria streets, Ottawa?
2.	What was the total cost of the tunnel and pipes leading from the said heating plant to [DOT]the Parliament Buildings and to other Government buildings?
3.	Does the total cost of the said heating station, plant, tunnel and pipes form part of the new Parliament Building?
4.	What has been the cost of the latter building to date?


Hon. Mr. REID:: ,	.
1.	$538,921.04.
2.	Total cost of tunnel, $157,166.97; cost of pipes in tunnel unknown, as they form portion of the $386,000 contract for heating and ventilating the Parliament BuildingE.
3.	Yes.
4.	$7,361,360.56.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS.
Mr. LEGER:: *For a copy of all letters, telegrams and' other documents relating to (the closing of the lifesaving station at Richibuctoo Beach, in the county of Kent, N.B.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.

Mr. ANDREWS:: 1.	What is the average cost per settler to the Government 'for which there -will be no return from the settler ini administering the Land Settlement Act to date?

2.	How does this cost compare with that of bringing Central Europeans to Canada during the Laurier Administration?
3.	Is the Land Settlement Act regarded by the Government as a re-establishment 'scheme for returned! soldiers or a colonization and. 'agricultural scheme?
4.	What amount of money has been paid by the board to the Provincial Government of Manitoba for land1 purchased under the Soldier Settlement Act?
5.	Wihiat amount of money has been paid by the board as purchase price for land through the firm of Messrs. Kennedy, Kennedy & Kennedy, barristers, Winnipeg?
6.	How many parcels of land submitted' to the board by Messrs. Allan, Killam & McKay, agents, of Winnipeg, Manitoba, were purchased
* by the board, and how many rejected?
7.	How do these figures compare with ,purchases through other agents at the time commission for purchases was allowed?



THE BUDGET.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, May 28, the debate , on the motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for t/he House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Hon. W. S. Fielding.
Hon. T. A. CREE.AR (Marquette): Mr. Speaker, in rising to make my contribution to the debate on the Budget, let me say at the outset that I hope to detain the House for no very great length of time. We have been debating the matter now for almost two weeks and naturally there remains little that can be added to the discussion that has already taken place. Before I come to discuss the proposals outlined in the speech delivered by the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), I wish to refer briefly to some of the criticisms directed against our Progressive group at this end of the Chamber by some hon. members on the other side of the House.
I have in mind particularly at the present time the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who spoke for almost two hours in this Chamber and, during the greater part of his speech, endeavoured to describe, or to criticise, certain actions of the grain growers and the farmers, which certainly was not relevant to the subject of debate. The criticisms were, I might add, very fg,r wide of the mark indeed.
My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) seems to be very much exercised over the continuation of the Canada Wheat Board. He attributes the formation of that board, and the effort to maintain it, to the farmers of

this country. I believe he even suggested that some of the members who sit behind me were desirous of seeing this board continued. Well in that regard, I am expressing my own personal opinion, and I think the opinion of those who sit around me, when I say that Government control in matters of this kind is not desirable as a permanent policy. My hon. friend, however, saw fit to take a different position. He apparently is quite desirous that this control shall cease at the earliest possible moment. I would suggest to him that he consult the Government as to what their policy for the future in the matter is. It does not lie with members on this side of the House, nor does it lie with the members particularly sitting around me, to say what the policy of the Government is to be in this respect. I would suggest to my hon. friend that if he is very anxious that this control should cease he might consult the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Commons who, I understand, is strongly in favour of the continuation of the board. I would also suggest that he keep his eye on the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) because if he does he may learn that the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Immigration and Colonization are perhaps now harbouring the thought of maintaining this control as a peimanent policy in order that they can appeal to the farmers of Canada with it as an offset to their tariff demands. I would suggest that consideration to my hon. friend.
My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) also saw fit to refer to the profits that had been made by the farmers' organizations and particularly that one with which I am associated. I do not know that this is a subject that is of much interest in this debate to the members of the House. I desire to say, however, that I will be very glad indeed to give my hon. friend, at any time, all the information he desires on that point and I certainly hope it will lead him to a more correct understanding than that which he displayed in his criticism. His criticism, based upon the statement that a profit of 211 per cent was made by the terminal elevator operated by the United Grain Growers, is altogether wide of the mark. This elevator is leased from the Canadian Pacific railway and -I wish to point out to my hon. friend if he wishes to be fair in the matter that back of that there is an investment of over $2,000,000 in country elevators for the purpose of gathering the grain that is sent to this terminal elevator. lIf my hon. friend wishes to be fair he must take that into account in any criticism he makes of it.
He also referred to the profits made by the Grain Growers Export Company of New York, a subject which also furnished a fruitful topic to the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards). It is true we have an export company in New York. It is organized under the New York state laws. It is true that with a capital of $100,000 the company earned $500,000 in 1915. But the explanation lies in this, that the company enjoyed exceptional privileges of credit. Our bank loans ran very high and the total amount of grain that was handled and which furnished the profit mentioned, was over 86,000,000 bushels. I ask my hon. friend if less than one-half of one per cent on the turn-over which was the fact in this case is an excessive profit. If my hon. friend wants to be fair I would suggest this other consideration, Mr. Speaker: I do not like at any time to parade before the public my patriotism or the patriotism of my friends but I think it may be interesting to my hon. friend to know that when the stress and trouble in connection with food supplies came upon us, when the Allies centralized their organization in Europe and extended their organization in America to handle grain, the Grain Growers Export Company, these profiteers whom my hon. friend described, turned over for absolutely nothing in return, their whole organization to the Wheat Export Company representing the British Government in New York, and for twenty-two months we served that organization with no return save salaries and expenses. We purchased and forwarded on ocean vessels for them over 197,000,000 bushels of oats and as I have said, we got not one cent out of it.
My hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) also had something to say the other night, He, at any rate, spoke with a certainty of knowledge that leaves no doubt of conviction in his own mind regardless of whether he is able to successfully convince other members in the House.
An hon. MEMBER:: Not much.


Mr. CRERAR:: My hon. friend seems to think that I am the abettor and the backer, and the supporter of the One Big Union idea in Canada. He even charged me with being responsible for sending Mrs. Rose Henderson to Timiskaming in order to assist in the election of my hon. friend from that


Mr. COPP:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Another very important
announcement in the Budget was the Government's policy on the tariff question. For a long time there had been considerable doubt in the public mind as to where the Government were eventually going to land in the matter of a tariff policy; and there was a good deal of heart searching and anxiety on the part of a good many of my hon. friends apposite-the member for Simoce North (Mr. Currie) for instance, and several others. But whatever struggle may have gone on behind the scenes, the matter is now settled; at any rate, we must accept the declaration of policy made by the Minister of Finance. Undoubtedly there were two conflicting elements among the Government's supporters in regard to this question:	There were those who believe
in a low tariff policy; there were those who believe in a policy of adequate protection.
And I can well conceive the difficulties of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) and my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) in reaching a decision upon the question, for during the period



that has elapsed since last autumn, when a declaration of policy was looked for, considerable water has run under the bridge. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) has made some speeches throughout the country in an endeavour to feel out the public on this matter. Down in Quebec he told the shoe manufacturers: "We must have a policy of adequate protection for Canadian industries." In Kingston a little later he was speaking in favour of "moderate" protection.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman excuse me? I would ask him to quote what I said in Quebec. I did not use the word "adequate" at all. If he is ascribing to me certain statements, much the fairer way would be for him to quote exactly what, I said, particularly if he is endeavouring to distinguish between what I said in one place and what I said in another. As a matter of fact, there was no distinction whatever.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I was relying on press reports of what my hon. friend stated. But at Kingston I think he said that he was in favour of a system of moderate protection, while in Winnipeg apparently he was in favour of a tariff for revenue. I shall read to the House what my hon. friend said on that occasion.


Arthur Meighen: I said a tariff for revenue and also for protection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend when in Winnipeg is reported by the Winnipeg Telegram to have stated:
I am not a high protectionist; I never was; and I do not believe it appropriate to this Dominion. The reason why I will give you in a minute. I am not a free trader. I never was, and I am perfectly convinced that it is not appropriate to this Dominion now. I believe in a moderate tariff. I believe in a moderate tariff for purposes of revenue, especially at this time.
That is the statement.


Arthur Meighen: Go on.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will continue the quotation :
I believe in it as well for the purpose of assuring the maintenance and expansion of industry.
But my hon. friend believes in a "moderate tariff" for the purposes of revenue. I would like to know where my hon. friend stands on this question.


Arthur Meighen: Exactly there.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, if my hon. friend stands "exactly there," he gave a most re-

markable performance in this Chamber the other night when he decried the fiscal policy of Great Britain; and if anything was lacking to make clear the policy of the Government on this tariff question, it was furnished in the speech made by the hon. Minister of the Interior during this debate. But, I say, the Government have finally cleared the decks for action; they have come out for the old National Policy of protection.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member for
Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) has declared himself-my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders) has not yet declared himself; I would not just at present ally him with that proposition. The Government's policy, I say, has finally emerged from the clouds of doubt and suspicion and mistrust that enveloped it, and it stands revealed before the country. What is it? It is the old National Policy of protection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
An hon. MEMBER:: And Germany.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not the figures
for the years immediately prior to the war, but I am informed that the imports of Germany exceeded her exports.


Arthur Meighen: Practically even.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Practically even; I am
quite willing to take my hon. friend's statement. But it is not the adverse balance of trade that counts in the prosperity of a nation. How has England prospered-because she has prospered, despite all that my hon. friend says-in the face of an ad-vese balance of trade? We find the facts very clearly stated by a noted British economist, no less a person than the editor of the London Economist, which is regarded as the leading financial journal not only of Great Britain but of the world. He says that the balance has been made up in this way:
First: Shipping freights. Our ships carry goods to and from them all over the world.
If Britain had been following a protectionist policy for the last seventy years, would her ships be going into every harbour and port of the world? Without any question they would not.
Second: Interest coupons. The American securities held by English investors yield a constant income in interest, to meet which the United States has to send goods.
My hon. friend practically stated that the other night, but he made this other remarkable statement: that it was the accumulated wealth of Great Britain prior to 1850 that had enabled her to make these investments in foreign countries and thus to overcome the handicaps that free trade had brought to her. There is one other item that helps to make up the balance:
Third: Insurance facilities. The English insurance companies and firms do a large business in the United States and draw thence a regular income in premiums.
Another result of the free trade policy of Great Britain. Then, banking facilities. Why, it is a well known fact that London was the international clearing house for the business of the world; that there was not a bank or a broker in London who did not take toll in some form

of the business of the world. The United States a protected country! If the United States wanted to pay for goods bought in China, she invariably did so by a draft on London; and it was the toll thus taken, the commissions and premiums earned on these transactions, that adjusted the balance o'f trade. I cannot for the life of me understand why my hon. friend bases his argument on the adverse balance of trade of Great Britain. We have a good example in Switzerland.	I am told that
Switzerland has nearly always had an adverse balance of trade, yet it is one of the most prosperous countries in Europe. Therefore, the argument that an adverse balance of trade is necesarily bad for a country does not hold water.


Arthur Meighen: Switzerland has tourist traffic.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman refers to Sir William Booth. Is he aware that
upon actual investigation Mr. Booth in his report asserted that 57 per cent of the poverty was due to unemployment?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There was a Sir Charles Booth, I know-


Arthur Meighen: Sir Charles.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But my hon. friend referred to William Booth.


Arthur Meighen: That was wrong.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There was Sir Charles
Booth who carried on some investigations of a private nature in that regard, but the fact nevertheless remains that the purpose of the book from which my hon. friend quoted was to disclose the bad social conditions that existed in Great Britain, which the writer attributed largely to the intemperance of the people; and on a work of that character my hon. friend based his argument against free trade and appealed to my hon. friend from Timiskaming. Now my hon. friend from Timiskaming is a Scotchman, and he is not an ordinary Scotchman, but a Glengarry Scotchman, and a -Glengarry Scotchman, I am told, has always a very keen nose for facts. But fancy my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) proposing an argument to my hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. McDonald), a Scotchman, that he should turn his eyes away from the evils of free trade because some one in the United Kingdom had written a book condemning Scotch whiskey ! That was rather a peculiar argument for my hon. friend to make, and I cannot help thinking that the Minister of the Interior must have slept the night before with the President of the Privy Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell) and assimilated some of that hon. gentleman's theories. And I think that quite possibly my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) was in the same bed. If he was, and the three hon. gentlemen had put their heads together, they could not have devised a more preposterous argument than that advanced by the Minister of the Interior. My hon. friend also speaks about the decline in agriculture in Great Britain, and he attributes that decline to the fact that Great Britain is a free-trade country. Now, I have talked to many farmers in Western Canada who have been engaged in agriculture in the Old Country, and in every instance in which I asked the reason why any man had left' the Old Land to come here, the answer was that he had done so in order to escape the exactions of the landlord, who was tak-


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is Judge Gary?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He is head of the United States Steel Corporation. Now, what is the condition of labour in Great Britain? I venture to say that Great Britain has the finest factory laws in the world. She has the greatest system of co-operation in the world, and nowhere has labour achieved the distinction and the place in parliamentary government that it has in Great Britain. There is no comparison between the United States and Great Britain in that regard, and when my hon. friend argues that free trade has had the effect of bringing poverty and distress to the British labouring man he is altogether astray. My hon. friend also quoted land values and the decrease in the agricultural population of Great Britain as an evidence of decline in the industry over there. It is true, according to his statement -and I have no reason to doubt it-that when free trade was adopted in Great Britain 49.8 per cent of the population were agricultural, and in 1913 this was reduced to 21.3 per cent. That is a very considerable reduction, but it is worth while to note that in Canada in 1881, immediately after the adoption of the National Poliey of Protection in this country, the percentage of rural population was 78.9 per cent, and in 1911, after thirty years of protection, it had declined, according to the statistics furnished by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, to 45.5 per cent.


Mr. SMITH:: The farmers were starving in the early years.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The figures I am giving
were furnished me by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I know that my hon. friend in his speech gave different figures. He said that the decline had been from 62 per cent to 54 per cent for the last ten-year period; but I repeat, the figures I have from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics state clearly that from 1881 to 1911 there was a decline from 78.9 per cent to 45.5 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: I obtained my figures
from the same source, and I fancy that if my hon. friend inquires into the matter he will find that the difference in the figures is due to the fact that the towns and the villages are taken on a different basis.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I directed my inquiry personally to the Dominion Statistician, and he gave me the figures as I have cited them. Now, the hon. gentleman also speaks about the decline in the value of farm lands in the United Kingdom, and he compares that country with the United States and Canada during the last seventy years. Of course, there has been a tremendous increase in the total value of farm lands in the United States and Canada during the last fifty years. Why? The country was opening up and new lands were being brought under cultivation, with the result that the aggregate increase in wealth in this respect was very marked. But that is scarcely a fair basis of comparison to take for the United Kingdom. Canada and the United States are new countries and they are not finished countries. Although agriculture may not be very prosperous in Canada we have added to the sum total of the value of cultivated agricultural land because we have new people coming and opening up new land all the time.
My hon. friend also quoted the values of farm lands in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia. I do not know from what source his figures were secured but they did strike me as being rather high. He tells us that in British Columbia farm lands have advanced from $74 in 1910 to $174 per acre in 1919, and if I remember his statement aright, in Nova Scotia there has been a considerable increase in farm land values also. I am free to say to my hon. friend that there has been an increase in value in the farm lands of the Prairie Provinces and possibly of British Columbia and the Maritime Provinces as well, but one of the factors in producing that increase is that we have had opened up to us the United States market for Canadian farm products. The argument was advanced, and I think it was advanced with reason, that the reciprocity arrangement suggested in 1911 would add $5 an acre to the value of our farm lands in Western Canada that were producing grain. Well this is one of the reasons for the increase. If my hon. friend goes to the Maritime Provinces he will find that they have a free market in the United States for their potatoes, for their apples, for all classes of agricultural products, whereas, a few years ago, they had to climb over a high tariff wall to get into that country. The result has been to increase the prosperity of the farmers in the Maritime Provinces.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of making apples free?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Certainly, I am in favour of making apples free. My hon. friend from Annapolis is badly mistaken if he thinks he is putting a poser to me in that regard. My hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) also quoted very largely from the reports of the special committees that were appointed by the Asquith Government to investigate trade conditions in the United Kingdom. It is true these committees were appointed in 1916 and that they were appointed by a Government of which Mr. Asquith was the head. But it was a coalition government; it was not the old Liberal Government in Great Britain. A coalition had been formed in 1915 and there were in that government quite a number of people who had held conflicting tariff views just as I fancy there has been in the Government of Canada in the making of the present Budget. But the fact that -these committees brought in these reports, I submit, is no substantial evidence to support the contention of my hon. friend that free trade has been a failure in Great Britain. Take the committee on iron and steel that he referred to. The report of that committee was dissented from by Sir Hugh Bell, who is one of the greatest iron masters in northern England and who is at the head of one of the biggest iron and steel firms in the United Kingdom. If Sir Hugh Bell took the position that duties on iron and steel coming into the United Kingdom were not desirable, why did he do so? He is a manufacturer; only he could benefit. When that question was put to my hon. friend he said in effect, in reply, that Sir Hugh Bell was wedded to tradition, that he could not get over his old free trade ideas and that in order to stick to them he would rather sacrifice his own financial benefit. I have done business with business men in the United Kingdom and I have never met a harder headed lot of business men any where than I have found in Great Britain. When my hon. friend suggests that the greatest iron master and manufacturer in Great Britain refused to do a thing that would be beneficial to his business simply because he was wedded to tradition his argument rests upon a ridiculous basis. The fact is that Sir Hugh Bell knows that in the long run, duties on iron and steel coming into the United Kingdom would not be in the interest of the iron industry.
I am free to say there is one respect in which the United Kingdom has perhaps lagged behind. It has lagged behind in the matter of technical education. The superiority that Germany and the United States acquired in some fields of manufacture was

due not to their fiscal policy but due very largely to the fact that they had provided in these countries the very finest technical schools that could be found anywhere. They applied chemistry and science to their manufactures in a way that the British manufacturer and business man did not do. But now the tale is changed; Great Britain, as a result of the war, certainly realizes the advantage of technical education and I venture to say will soon bring it within the reach of her people.
I submit again that these committees were appointed at a time of war fervour. The resolutions passed at the Paris conference, I think, in 1916, laid it down as a principle that the Allies would not renew trade with Germany when the war was over. But they have seen the futility of that position and it is not a fair or sound argument to take the reports of these committees that were appointed at that time as evidence of a need of protection in Great Britain. But what has happened to these reports? Where have they gone? These committees were appointed in 1916 and they brought in their reports in 1918. Since that time Mr. Austen Chamberlain, the son of the only British statesman who ever endeavoured to fasten protection in a limited form on the British people in the last seventy years, has brought in two Budgets. Has he made any reference to the reports of these committees? Has he suggested a duty on iron, steel or textiles? He certainly has not. I think we are well aware that in 1918 shortly after the last British election, an effort was made to introduce into the fiscal system of Great Britain anti-dumping duties. What response did it find? There was not a reputable statesman in Great Britain who would take it up and the result was that nothing has been heard of it and I venture to say nothing will be heard of it. I want to read to the House the concluding statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) in his disquisition on the fallacies of free trade as found in Great Britain. This, to my mind, is an amazing statement; I cannot characterize it in any other words. What does he say?
We are at a stage now where we cannot mistake the teachings of experience. We have seen the result through seventy years in the Old Land. It is traced in the history of their trade returns that turned in 1850, the last decade year when they had a balance in their favour, and every decade year since a balance against them. Free trade has depopulated rural England ; it has filled the emigrant ships with fugitives from her shores; It has scattered the manhood of Great Britain through the fields and workshops of the United States; it has starved and repressed and dwarfed the nascent indus-
[Mr. Cre:'a.r. j
tries of Ireland ; it has reversed the supremacy that Britain held through centuries in the industrial life of the world, and caused her to concede the place to other great competing nations that adopted a different policy. Such is the history of free trade.
To my mind-and I say it in the best of good temper-the Minister of the Interior has never made a more amazing statement than the one I have just quoted. Why, Mr. Speaker, we have just come out of a war that has stressed and tried every country in the world, and what is the result? Where is protectionist Germany to-day? Where is protectionist France and where is protectionist Italy? Where are they- where are they financially? Where does their currency stand in the exchanges of the world? To say that Great Biitain is decadent, in the face of the fact that she not only financed her own part in the war, which was teriffic, but loaned to her Allies over $8,000,000,000 during the war-why, Sir, the thing is beyond belief. If the war has proven anything it has proven the efficacy of the fiscal policy of Great Britain and her financial stability. My hon. friend talks about the depopulation of Great Britain, and the people fleeing from her shores to new pastures! Why, the population of Great Britain increased between 1850 and 1911 from twenty-seven millions to forty-five millions,


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -and at the same time she sent 12,000,000 of her ^ons in emigrant ships-


Michael Clark: Peopling the
Empire.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
Arthur Meighen: Does my hon.
friend say that John Stuart Mill did not favour a protective tariff if opposed by a protective tariff in other countries? If he denies it, I can give him the quotation in a few minutes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mill was in accord with the free trade policy of Great Britain, and I think my hon. friend would have great difficulty in establishing the contrary.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Did he not go further?
Mr. CRERaR: I will quote other witnesses. Let us take the great statesmen of Great Britain-


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I ask the hon. gentleman did Mill not go further?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: First I will take Gladstone. Was Gladstone a protectionist? Did he believe in protection? Did Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith and Lloyd George believe in protection? My hon. friends opposite may say, "These were Liberals and nothing else was to be expected of them." Well, we will take Conservative statesmen in Great Britain, and with the exception of Joseph Chamberlain, and even-he made it clear, in his tariff reform propaganda in Great Britain about seventeen or eighteen years ago, that he had no use for protection as protection; his campaign and arguments were based altogether on creating Imperial preferences in order to hold the Empire together. I think he was mistaken in that, but nevertheless he is on record as saying that he did not believe in protection for protection's sake. What about Peel, the Duke of Devonshire, and Lord St. Aldwyn. The last named, as Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, was one of the great English chancellors. What about Lord Salisbury and Lord Robert Cecil and Lord Hugh Cecil? Were these men carried away by the glamour of protection? No, they were absolutely against it. What about the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour, perhaps the
brightest intellect in the Conservative party in Great Britain? He refused to follow Chamberlain in his protectionist propaganda and policy. What about Disraeli, the creator of the modern Tory party in Great Britain? His judgment on protection was that so far as Great Britain was concerned it was not only dead but damned.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I hope I have not offended the tender susceptibilities, of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. MORPHY:: The hon. gentleman has been quoting authorities in favour of free trade, but is he himself in favour of free trade for Canada?


Michael Clark: Make an argument.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is all very well for my hon. friend from Red Deer to say, "make an argument."


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will say this, that the fiscal policy for Great Britain, in my judgment, would be a very admirable one for Canada.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will the hon. gentleman answer my question? I want an answer to the question, from my hon. friend, if he pleases.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The tariff policy of the Canadian Council of Agriculture does not call for absolute free trade, as some hon. gentlemen opposite have stated. As I have previously stated in the House its policy is that the tools and implements of production should be made free, and the cost of the necessaries of life should be reduced.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is being done to-day under this very Budget.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In Great Britain, the Minister of the Interior tells us, they are raising a billion and a half dollars this year from customs taxation. I think he is mistaken in the figures, but at any rate they are raising a very large amount in customs taxes. We can still get a great deal of revenue from the tariff in Canada, and at the same time eliminate the principle of protection in industry, which is bad. That is the thing we should do. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have continued at much greater length than I intended, but I have yet a few further observations to make.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Give them more of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I submit -that the whole argument, as far as the fiscal policy of Great Britain is concerned, confirms absolutely, unequivocally, and beyond successful contradiction, that that policy has been in the interests of the United Kingdom, and I submit that a similar policy in Canada could do nothing but redound to the benefit of this Dominion. What have been the effects of protection in Canada? We have a perfect right to ask what benefit has it been to the country? Is it a sensible thing to develop artificial industries and make it difficult for the natural industries of the country to develop? We say we want to develop agriculture. Would my hon. friends opposite say that we should protect agriculture by way of giving a bounty to the wheat producers of Western Canada?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes, if it needs it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know where, in the end, my hon. friend would get the money. Agriculture is the basic industry of this country, and it is the part of wisdom to free the tools of production that are necessary for the development of this great industry, and the development of our forests, our mines, and our fisheries as well. I have never been able to see the sense of creating, for instance, a cotton industry in Canada-which I shall refer to in a moment-and which is entirely an artificial industry in this country We do not produce the raw material that enters into the manufacture of textiles in this country, but we have to import every ounce of that raw material. Is it not in every sense a better thing to produce the articles that we can best produce in this country, and that are natural to the country, and trade them off to others for things they can produce better than we can? That is the sensible policy to follow.
Now, what is the position of agriculture in this country? The farmers of Western Canada are producing two staple commodities, grain and livestock, and the basis of value upon which they sell their productions is fixed in the markets of the world. You will have to have protection in Canada for a long time before you can have a market capable of consuming all the wheat our farmers produce. But they are not afraid to sell their wheat against all comers; and the same holds good in regard to livestock.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am sorry, but I do not wish to be interrupted. You are putting a

penalty on agriculture when you say to the farmers: "You must have the cost of your implements of production increased by the operation of this Customs tariff." You are making it more difficult for agriculture to succeed, and to that extent you are hampering and handicapping an industry that is natural to the country. We talk of Canada being an agricultural country. Of course it is. And eventually it will become a great manufacturing country; there is not any question about that. But if we develop agriculture, if we can put 2,000,000 farmers on the land, will not that be a good thing for our manufacturers? I can conceive of nothing better for creating a home market.
But the fact is that to-day agriculture is carried on under conditions of disadvantage. I will admit that during the last few years where farmers have secured good crops they have made money. But go out and speak to the farmers of Southern Alberta, who have had three successive crop failures; go out and speak to the farmers of Southern Saskatchewan, who have had the same misfortune; go out and speak to the farmers of Eastern Canada who have been handicapped by bad crops, and ask them what their opinion is of having the cost of the tools and implements of their industry added to by the operation of the Customs tariff; it will not take you long to get a reply.
During this debate we have heard some comment on our textile industry, and my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) placed upon Hansard some figures in connection with the development of that industry in this country. But he did not supply all the information on the subject at that time. The Dominion Textile Company, Limited, is our leading concern manufacturing cotton goods, and is a combination of four textile companies that were merged in 1905. At that time-and this is taken from the evidence given by the General Manager of the Dominion Textile Company, Limited before the Cost of Living Commission a year ago-his company issued $5,000,000 of common stock for which they paid $500,000, or $10 a share, thus four and a half millions of that common stock was pure water. What happened? Under the shelter of the tariff, enjoying protective duties ranging from 30 to 40 per cent, the Dominion Textile Company, Limited, was able to so extract profits from the people of this country that this stock last year was quoted as high as $125 a share. I ask my hon. friend the Minister

of the Interior (Mr. Meighen), who, I believe, stated at Quebec that the tariff should not be used as a place of shelter by industries that could stand on their own feet, what he thinks of that condition of affairs?


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman want an answer? I understand that in that case the profits were made largely out of export trade as a result of the war.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, we can go back to 1914, before the war, and we shall find that this $5,000,000 of common stock, or rather $4,500,000, that in 1905 had no value whatever, in 1914 was selling as high as $86 a share. If my hon. friend will study the figures of our exports at that time he will find that very litle business was done in Canadian textiles. And yet that $4,500,000 of common stock, of pure unadulterated water, had attained a value of over $3,000,000! Is that building up useful industry in this country, or is it not enriching the few at the expense of the many? But by way of contrast, what are the wages paid to our textile workers in Canada? According to figures from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics 7,946 males and 7,654 females, or a total of 15,618, are engaged in the cotton textile industry in this country. Now I wish' to direct the attention of the House to this illuminating fact, that the average yearly wage of those 15,000 employees is only $538.23. Is that what protection has done for the workers of our textile industry?


Mr. STEVENS:: What is your authority for those figures?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: A report of the Dominion Statistician published last month.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There must be a basis
for that average.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is based on returns supplied by companies covering all the textile industries in this country. Will any one argue that that is a reasonable condition of affairs? If my hon. friends want a moderate tariff for revenue only, and if the Government desire to wipe out special privilege in this direction, why did they not start on the tariff schedule in respect to cotton goods when arranging their Budget? On the contrary, these cotton duties are maintained. And the same condition applies not only to the textile industry, but to many other industries as well.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the tariff views of this little group are well known. As I have stated before, we stand broadly on this principle,-that the implements of production for the development of our agriculture, our forests, our mines, and our fisheries should be made free, and that there should be a substantial reduction in all other duties under the general tariff. That is a specific plank in the platform of the Council of Agriculture. I want to know what are the views of my hon. friend opposite on this question. I would like the Minister of the Interior in his next speech, or the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, to state his views as to what duties should prevail on, say, agricultural implements, on textiles, and on iron and coal.
We have read a good deal in the papers recently about the British Empire Steel merger. Mr. Grant Morden who is a member of the British House of Commons but Canadian born, I am told at a meeting in this city recently made the statement,-that this merger, when completed, would be in a position to compete with the world. Well, if that be the case, would it not be a good thing to remove the duty on coal and so help the manufacturers and other consumers in the province of Ontario who are using coal, and would it not be a good thing to take the duty off iron and steel as well? I cannot for the life of me, Sir, see the advantage of supporting a policy that develops mergers, such as the British Empire Steel merger, which is practically cornering all the coal and iron ore in sight in the Maritime Provinces and with the inevitable result of an effort being made with the assistance of the tariff to pay dividends on large amounts of watered stock.
I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that one of the most effective ways in which he can combat this growing tendency to combine various companies into huge combinations is by using the weapon of the tariff. The tariff has been used not only in the industries I have mentioned, but it has been used in many others that could be mentioned by company promoters simply for the purpose of taking additional profits out of the Canadian people. I make the statement in all seriousness that the protective tariff has been the greatest agency for exploiting our people that was ever devised.
I want to give the Minister of Finance further evidence. For instance, moulded rubber goods are used largely in this country. I gave this statement to the House on a previous occasion but I repeat it again because it is pertinent to the matter we are discussing. The following is taken from a prospectus issued by the K. & 8. Canadian Tire and Rubber Company, Limited, of Toronto, circulated privately for the pur-

pose of getting additional money to put into their business-and I am using this quotation because it is direct evidence, not hearsay; it is from a prospectus issued by these people themselves:
At Weston, Ontario, we have the only plant in Canada for making moulded rubber goods exclusively. Our capacity amounts to 3,000 pieces per day. This class of goods in the past has been imported principally from the States. It would not be policy to state our margin of profit, but believe that we are able to manufacture at United States costs.
Now, note this:
There is a protective tariff of at least 35 per cent (and up to 42J per cent) in our favour. We are thus able to sell at a lower price than any foreign competitor and still have a good profit.
The quality of our rubber sundries is admitted to be the equal of the best imported goods.
Will any of my hon. friends opposite argue for a moment that the K. & S. Canadian Tire and Rubber Company, who, on their own admission, can manufacture as cheaply in Canada as they do in the United States, are selling these goods at prices any lower than the prices of similar goods imported from the United States? I will tell you more. The Minister of Finance will probably find an effort being made one of these days to mergerize the rubber companies of this country who are manufacturing rubber goods; they will capitalize their earning power and issue a lot of common stock against it, which will represent no value, and in order to do it more effectively they will get under the shelter of the protective tariff. I would commend these considerations to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.
Now, I have spoken somewhat longer than I had intended. Out views on the question of tariff are well known; I have already stated them. I want to say a word about the amendment that my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has moved. I quite agree with the member from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) that the amendment has considerable milk and water. The plain fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker is, that the time has oome when we should get away from all make-believe on this question of tariff. We are entitled to know where every one stands in this matter. I have every respect for the man who honestly holds the view that protection is necessary for this country. But we want a clear cut discussion of the question, and I hope that my hon. friends opposite, when the time comes that the tariff [Mr. Crerar-l
is discussed in the open forum, will debate the question on its merits and
5 p.m. not seek to cloak and cover it up with various other appeals to racial and religious prejudices, as has so often been the case in the past. What we	want is to get a
clear, definite expression of opinion from the Canadian people upon the question. In this period of reconstruction, when we are confronted with gigantic problems, questions of tariff and of business administration certainly call for closer study than has ever been the case in the past. We can only overcome, I am convinced, the financial difficulties which confront us and lighten the financial burdens that the Canadian people have to carry, by an intelligent development of the resources of this country, and I again submit that of all these resources the one that lies most readily to hand is that of our agriculture. Let us, Mr. Speaker, direct our policy in the future to the development of these industries instead of seeking to create artificial industries that have to live under the sheltering wing of a high protective tariff. Let us seek to develop the industries that are natural to the country; if we do, the development of other industries will follow as surely as night follows day. By adopting a policy of this kind; by adopting a policy of special privileges to none-because I submit that the tariff is a special privilege to those who have the benefit of it-we shall lay firm and broad the foundations of a great and prosperous country.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (Oxford South):: Mr. Speaker, before attempting to follow the arguments of the hon. gentleman who has just addressed the House (Mr. Crerar), I would like to say that the Budget presented to Parliament this year reminds us that although the war is ended, war conditions are to some extent still with us. A crisis in our history has been reached and safely passed. But we have still great obligations to meet, and I am sure that the people of Canada will prove themselves capable of dealing with those obligations. I listened with a great deal of interest to the first Budget Speech delivered by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton), and I must congratulate him upon the manner in which he delivered it, upon the conciseness with which he dealt with the various matters connected with it, and upon the frank and open manner in which he revealed to the people the exact financial situation as it is and as it has to be dealt with.	.

That Canada is a difficult country to govern I believe everybody realizes. Under ordinary conditions, in the absence ol such problems as have to be dealt with at the present time, the Government of Canada, is most difficult. But the present situation is much less serious than it was two years ago. I am particularly pleased to know that we have with us again the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) who carried on during the whole period of the war; the man who, by his wonderful foresight, endeavoured to have Canada prepared as well as was possible when the terrible war broke loose upon the world. He carried on during the early years of the war and year after year as the war continued. We were, however, put to a crucial test in the fall of 1-917, when the question arose whether the people of Canada would uphold the policy of the Prime Minister and his Government. Notwithstanding the fact that 400,000 Canadians had gone overseas; notwithstanding the fact that there was a casualty list of over 125,000, the mandate which he received and which the Government received on that occasion was to carry on. He carried on, and he saw the war brought to a successful conclusion. He has been subjected to considerable criticism, not only by hon. members opposite but from other sources outside of this House, because he was not day in and day out on the job here in Canada. We welcome him back to the forum of Parliament. We are plea-sed indeed to know, and the people of Canada rejoice in it, that Sir Robert Borden is again able to carry on, and likely to do so for many years.
We have listened for about an hour -and a half to an hon. gentleman who was a member of the Cabinet when Sir Robert Borden and his Government received that mandate in the fall of 1917. A year -ago we heard him -address this House and endeavour to explain to the people why he had broken with the Government. There has been a good deal of speculation in regard to that matter, not only by hon. members here, but by the people throughout the country. Now he -appears in the role of leader of a party in this House, and if under those conditions I h-ave something to -say -that he may consider as rather unkind it is because of the fact that the situation is a very peculiar one and not from any -personal motive, it is absolutely necessary and in the public interest that we should have a united people to deal with the task which lies before us as one whole people with a common ideal, and not
in sections, not divided into classes and factions. We must unite the whole people of this country, and when- we do that, we shall overcome the difficulties we have to contend with so quickly that in a few years from now I venture to state that the people will wonder how it was that there was any alarm felt in this Parliament or outside of it over the debt now confronting us.
I was somewhat startled to hear the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Trahan) in his speech in this House on the 28th instant, referring to the debt which we have on our shoulders, protest against the policy embodied in the slogan which was adopted in the last election that we were in the war "To the last man and the last dollar," till our efforts were crowned with victory. He went on to state that the policy adopted by the Government was to place British interests first and Canadian interests in a secondary position. Now I want to take strong exception to that statement. We are a part of the British Empire. We have not yet reached that stage, nor do we intend to reach it, when our connection with the Empire will be severed. It was well known that at that time the fate of the Empire was almost hanging in the balance, and it was realized we were a part, of the Empire. The hon. member then went on to compare our debt with that of Japan, and he quoted figures to show that our obligations were much heavier than those of Japan. He even suggested that Ja-pan had acquitted herself and rendered a service during the war equally as great as did Canada. I take exception to any statement of that kind. I am not one of those who believe in continually referring to what -Canada did in the war. Canada's part in the war is a matter o:f history, and- is well known. I believe that the consensus of opinion throughout the world is that Canada acquitted herself in a manner to which no one could take any exception, and the obligations which we have to face as a result of our effort in the war .are no greater than could be expected.
I wish to refer briefly to some of the statements made by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar). For about an hour he spoke on the tariff. He laboured long along that line, and practically advocated free trade until almost the concluding sentences of his address, when, questioned from this side of the House as to where he stood, he hesitated, and then referred .to the platform of the United Grain Growers-	.


Mr. GOULD:: No.


Donald Sutherland: -to the platform
of the Council of Agriculture. I was also surprised to see, immediately after the Minister of Finance had concluded his Budget speech, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) spring to his feet ae iif he were afraid some one else would catch the Speaker's eye. In concluding the address he delivered, following that of the Minister of Finance, he moved an amendment which was evidently prepared before he had heard or knew anything about what the Budget speech contained. That was quite evident to every one who heard him, and it is little wonder that he has been taunted by some hon. gentlemen opposite as to the small quantity of milk his amendment really contains compared with the water. But the most remarkable feature of his address was that he advocated protection, advocated the dumping clause, and also favoured mergers. He cautioned the people of this country to take little stock in the platform of either the Liberal party or that of hon. gentlemen on the cross benches. He cautioned the people of this country not to be led away with any idea that the Liberal party were likely to put into effect the platform they had adopted. He said that the responsibility of office had a sobering effect, and consequently the people need not be frightened by what the Grain Growers are likely to do should they come into power, and as he spoke I could not help feeling that while there may not be any very good team work on this side of the House there is considerable between the two Oppositions we have represented in this House. My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, -whose speech has been so severely criticized, judging from his past history, might well caution the people of Canada not to take those platforms too seriously but I say that this is a time when we should take politics, seriously in this country, I am very much mistaken indeed, and I am inclined to think that some of these hon. gentlemen, old and experienced in political life as they may be, will find they have made a great mistake if they think the people can be fooled along that line much longer. I do not want to do the hon. gentleman an injustice. This is what he said:
I do not think myself, as things are going now, that we can look to that party-
That is the party led by the hon. member for Marquette.
-for a sound tariff policy. What then? I do not even think we can expect to get a sound and safe tariff policy hy a too rigid adherence
[Mr. Gould.)
to every line and every letter of the Liberal tariff platform. I think myself that we will find that we are all prone in framing platforms to put things perhaps a little more strongly than is wise and we all find when we come to the responsibilities of office that we may have to modify our views. If we are to get a sound and sane tariff policy where shall we look for it?
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) in his address in this House the other day quoted from a speech made by the leader of the Liberal party previous to the elections of 1896. He quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier as saying:
I submit to you that the ideal fiscal system is the British system of free trade.
I come to expose to you the policy of the Liberal party. Let me tell you that the policy may be summed up in the good Saxon word " Freedom," in every sense of the term-freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom of religious life and civil life, and last, not least, freedom in commercial life. I denounce to you the policy of protection as bondage.
Those were the statements made by the leader of the Opposition of that day, in giving his policy with regard to the tariff. A short time afterwards he got into power, he later on delivered a speech in the manufacturing industrial city of Toronto in 1906, in which he is reported by the Toronto Globe to have said:
Everybody will agree with me, the business men of Toronto more than anybody-that in a fiscal policy such as we have, where we derive our revenue chiefly from customs duties, it is absolutely essential to the capitalist, to the workingman, to the businessman, to the industrialist, that he should know exactly the conditions under which he invests his capital; that he should know that it will be invested under a condition that will not be lightly altered.
These would appear to be the words of a man who was conscious of the responsibility of office whidh had been placed upon his shoulders. He then went on in his speech to deal with what- he characterized as the tinkering with the tariff which had been done by the Conservative Government previous to 1896, when the Liberal party came into power.	I could
give the number of changes he referred to in that address, but I will not delay the House to do so. After having done that, he said:
Well, sir, when there were so many changes the manufacturer dreaded the day of the Budget Speech. He was always anxious lest he find himself the following morning a ruined man. But I am proud to say that under our regime the manufacturers always sleep soundly and never fear interference with the tariff. We have made very few changes in the duty.
It goes on to bear out the statement that was made by the hon. member for Mar-

quette (Mr. Crerar) that we have and have had in this country, under both the Conservative party and the Liberal party, the old National Policy. There is no getting away from that. The National Policy was amended time and again before Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power, but he ad-milts in that speech delivered in Toronto that very few changes had been made in the tariff by his party. Changes are continually necessary, Mr. Speaker, because conditions change in a country as time goes on; and a tariff that might be suitable to the requirements of the country at this stage might not be suitable a few years hence. But I think that every one will agree that under the extraordinary war conditions such as we have experienced, what we required was stability and confidence on the part of every individual; and it will be conceded, I think, that we required also that the greatest possible effort should be put forth by all the people, and it was not by any such means as have been alluded to this afternoon by the hon. membeT for Marquette that the condition which we desired could be brought about.
Now, Sir, I am coming to the time when the hon. member for Marquette, who I regret is not in his seat, saw fit to break with the Government, and I shall deal briefly with the reasons which he gave for parting company with them on that occasion. I have here a copy of the letter which he sent to the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) in reference to the matter, in which he states:
Ottawa, June 4th, 1919.
You will observe, before I proceed any further, Mr. Speaker, that the Budget Speech was delivered the following day. The hon. member remained in the Government until the moment when the Budget was to be introduced. Apparently, the matter had been settled. The hon. member wrote as follows:
My dear Sir Robert,-The Government in its consideration of the Budget to be placed before Parliamerit to-morrow has reached, I take it, definite and final conclusions as to the form it will take. As you are aware, I am not in accord with it and therefore cannot support it either in the House or in the country. Having reached this decision, there is only one course for me to follow, and I therefore tender you herewith my resignation as a member of the Government. The reason for my decision shall be given more fully when the subject is under discussion in the House.
It was the question of the tariff upon which the hon. member for Marquette broke with the Government. Let me remind the
House that the tariff was not an issue in the election of 1917. So far as I am aware, there was no discussion in connection with tariff issues in any part of the country at that time. It was recognized that men of different views concerning the tariff had joined together and that we had established a union or coalition government to carry on during the war and throughout the reconstruction period afterwards. It is true that changes were made in the tariff in 1919. When the Budget was brought down it was found that in regard to the very things that have been advocated by the hon. member (Mr. Crerar) to-day as items that should be placed on the free list, a fairly generous concession had been made in that direction. The tariff had been reduced on a great many agricultural implements from 17j per cent to 12J per cent, and the surtax of 1915 of 7\ per cent, had also been removed. Better rates for shipment of machinery over the railways of the country so far as Western Canada was concerned had also been obtained, and the Government had done the very thing which hon. gentleman had been advocating. Notwithstanding that there had been no reference to the tariff in the election of 1917, the Government conceded to hon. members from Western Canada something along the line which they have advocated. The Government met them more than half way, but the hon. member (Mr. Crerar) found even then that he had to devise some excuse to leave the Government. I do not think his explanation has satisfied the members of this House, nor do I think it has satisfied the people of the country. The hon. member is leader of a political party in this country to-day, and consequently we are justified in examining his actions and his words and also in endeavouring to arrive at some understanding as to what his motives are and the influence which controls him. The statement has been made by a member of the Government-and it has nolt been denied by any one-that the Government were agreed to go on as they were without any reductions in the tariff; but after having made these reductions the remarkable thing is that the hon. member for Marquette decided to get out of the Government in any event. The hon. member, while he was a member of the Government of Canada for, I think, about a year and a half, occupied another position in this country. He was also President of .the Uniited Grain Growers, Limited. He was in the pay of the United Grain Growers, Limited of Canada, from whom he

was receiving a salary in excess of what he received as a member of the Government and a member of Parliament combined. The United Grain Growers, Limited, Mr. Speaker, has a system of recall embodied in their regulations; it is a part of their constitution. That is where the system of recall really originated in Canada. It is an American institution that has been brought over here, and it has been adopted in the regulations of the United Gram Growers, Limited. Let me point out this fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have the sworn evidence of the General Manager of the United Grain Growers, Limited that they endeavoured to put the recall into effect. Now, how did they put it into effect? How did_ they withdraw the president of 'heir company from the Government? I will tell you how they did it. I do not say that what I am about to state was the sole object of the hon. gentleman in deserting the Government. I say "deserting," because he as-su-edly did desert them before the task for vhich he was elected had been accomplished. There is no question about that. In September, 1918, the directors of the United Grain Growers, Limited passed a resolution or by-law whereby they increased the salary of the president, a member of the Government, from $10,000 to $15,000 a year, to go into effect when he withdrew from the Government. Apparently it was a very effective way of putting the Tecall into operation. Hon. gentlemen on cross benches opposite are subject to the recall, they may advocate a different kind, but this one evidently was quite effective in its operations, for it accomplished the Object at which it aimed, il want to make some further reference to Ithe hon. gentleman. The amalgamation of the Alberta Elevator Company and the Manitoba Grain Growers' Company into the United Grain Growers' Limited took place on the firjgt of September, 1917. The hon. gentleman, the president of this company, was sworn as a member of the Government on the 12th October, 1917. He resigned' 'from the Government on the 4th June, 1919. The hon. gentleman claims to have a particular interest in the farmers and that interest was shown on a number of occasions during the short time that he was Minister of Agriculture. A matter came up which was not of special interest to the grain growers of Western Canada as they were more interested in grain growing than anything else, tout which was of vital interest to the Dairymen of Eastern Canada as well as the West. An Order in Council was put through shortly after 
he became Minister of Agriculture permitting, strange to say, the great and wealthy corporations the packing houses on his license to gather up the dairy produce of the farmers of this country, mix it in their factories and sell it under another name. It lost its identity once it went into their factories and it came out as oleomargarine. I have referred to this matter in the past and I defy any one to say that I have ever objected to the importation or manufacture of oleomargarine. What I have objected to, what I do object to and I will continue to object to, is the great dairy industry being made a basis for the manufacture of this stuff and of secondary consideration to the big packing houses, and permitting them to gather up dairy produce and to treat it in such a way as to lose its identity the high standard which took so many years of industry to build up and to merge it with that of an inferior article. This was the first evidence that the hon. gentleman gave of his interest in agriculture.
But during all this time we had evidence that he was busy in another direction. In the province of Ontario the Provincial Government had been endeavouring to organize the farmers into clubs for co-operative purposes. There were also a few men who had been identified with farmers' movements in the years gone iby. We have had many farmers' organizations tin this country, political and ico-operative, that it is not easy to recall them all. We have had unrestricted reciprocity, commercial union, the patrons of industry and Dominion grange and others. A number of the old patrons of industry which was destroyed or absorbed by the Liberal Party in Ontario got together and endeavoured to prostitute or pervert the farmers' clubs. We have evidence published in a farming magazine that the hon. member for Marquette wa3 a frequent visitor at the offices of those who were furthering this movement in opposition to the farmers' co-operative clubs and the statement is also made that had it not been for the generous assistance in money and advice which this organization received from the grain growers of the West and the hon. member for Marquette they would not have .succeeded in their efforts. That has 'been published throughout the country by one of the original organizers of what is known as the United Farmers of Ontario. I often "wonder "whether this much lauded Grain Growers 'Limited had some ulterior object in view in endeavouring to destroy the co-operative spirit which was being created in Ontario.

It is absolutely impossible to divide the people of this country, to get people to organize Ithemselves along class lines politically in opposition to the interests of the /people of Canada generally. You may get a few designing ambitious individuals who regard their awn interests more that they do those of the class they claim to represent to take that stand, 'but I venture to state that inside of five years there will not be a vestige of that party left in this country. Why do I make such a statement as that? /Because I believe I know the farmers of [DOT]this country as well as does the hon. member for Marquette and I know that in so far as the province of Ontario is concerned the ease has been misrepresented Ito them.
That hon. gentleman in some of his addresses suggests to the farmers that they have not had a fair deal in the past, that they have not the representation in Parliament particularly in the House of Commons to which they are entitled. He even says that their representation is less than ten iper cent of the whole. The hon. gentleman is not always correct in the figures which he gives us. If you analyze the figures which the hon. gentleman put before the House a year ago when he endeavoured to justify his attitude, and if you inquire into many of the statements iwhich he has made in public you will find that you can discount them generally by aboult fifty per cent. I make the statement that the farmers have received generous treatment at the hands not only of this Government but of other governments in the redistribution of constituencies; representation has been in the farmers' favour. City constituencies have two and three times the population of rural on the whole.
What is going to be the upshot of this movement that is on foot led by the hon. member for Marquette? Do you suppose that the people of the towns and cities are going to sit ibaek and allow this condition to continue? The farmers of this country are organizing 'themselves into a political body and if that is the case and if they are going to separate themselves from other classes of the community there will only be one thing to do and we must have " representation according t-o population." This is the attitude that will be adopted. As far as the farmers of this country are concerned, they have had generous treatment at the hands of all governments with regard to parliamentary representation, I think that will be admitted by everybody. I know of counties which had three representatives in this House and 185
other constituencies which have only one representative although they have more votes than the county with three representatives. Is that fair if we are to have class representation because it happens to apply largely to rural districts? 1 represent a constituency myself where the vote is pretty evenly divided. There are a few more farmers than there are townspeople but I do not believe the people of my constituency have ever made any discrimination in that respect. I have received generous support from the people in the towns and I regret exceedingly that these hon. gentlemen opposite are not fair and do not give these people credit for having so acted in the past. If the farmers have not the representation in this House which they claim they are entitled to, they have nobody to blame but themselves. It is absolutely their own fault. They have often refused to vote for a candidate because he happened to be a farmer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Donald Sutherland: An hon. gentleman says ''hear, hear." Yes, we will divide this country into classes in order to get the farmers to vote as a class but you ' are making the greatest mistake you ever made in your lives if you think the farmers are the narrow-minded, bigoted class you take them to be. The policy that you are advocating. class representation, may be adopted in some places but you will find that it will be spurned with indignation by the broadminded farmers of this country. It was during the most critical period in the history of this country-at a time when our eyes were fixed on the western battlefront, which was being day by day bent back, when every Canadian was almost afraid to road the morning papers for fear news of the line breaking-there were persons endeavouring to organize the farmers of Canada into a political organization, and some of them came trooping down to Ottawa asking that the farmers should be exempt from military service, and by their actions cast odium on the farmers of Ontario. But the people of that province were not responsible for what occurred at that time in connection with the question of military service. Hon. gentlemen opposite know full well that the executive which met in the city of Toronto, before coming down to Ottawa, were not honest with the people whom they claimed to represent. They claimed that they were coming down here ito endeavour to secure exemption from military service only in cases of extreme hardship, which would have been a very



(reasonable request and justifiable. Instead of that, however, they asked that total exemption should be granted to all farmers; and the man who is now sitting in this House as the representative for North Ontario, after having heard the Prime Minister state what the views of the Government were in regard to the matter, insisted upon coming before the Bar of the House of Commons in order to make a statement there. I will venture to state that under the circumstances no such proposition was ever dreamed of before. The men behind this request endeavoured to make it appear that a similar privilege had been granted to Mr. Gompers, the United States labour leader, and to Mr. Viviani, the exPrime Minister of France. But, Sir, on both those occasions the House had risen and was not actually in session when the distinguished men referred to addressed the members of Parliament. These are some of the things as to which the people of the province from which I come have been misled and misformed. These men went back .from the city of Ottawa and raised the cry, "Oh, we were turned out''; but the significant thing is that the Minister of Agriculture in the neighbouring province of Quebec wa6 one of the chief figures in that movement. In co-operation with some men who now have seats in this House the effort was made to make it appear that Ontario was responsible for the whole thing. Yes, there were a great many men from the western part of Ontario who were surprised when they got here at that time to find that there were so many delegates from other provinces.
Now, I must proceed to the consideration of other matters.


Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: I would like to correct the impression that was given to the House that there was only one member from the West-


Mr. DEPUTY  SPEAKEB@: The hon. member would certainly not be in order in doing so, at the present time.


Donald Sutherland: I am quite willing to be asked a question as to any matter arising out of my remarks.
I want briefly to refer to something that took place previous to the elections of 1917. There is in this country a publication known as the Canadian Annual Review, and I think every one will concede that it gives a very fair and impartial review of all matters of importance which transpire throughout Canada. This work, I believe, has now been conducted for about twenty years, and it certainly fills a want which was long felt before

that time. I want to quote from the Canadian Annual Review of 1917, page 594. Reference is there made to the attitude of the then leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) during the negotiations which led up to the formation of the Union Government, which he did not see fit to join, and in conclusion the following statement is made:
With it all the Liberal chieftain maintained his hopeful outlook, fought earnestly for his cherished convictions of a life-time, believed that he had a chance to win, and was convinced that if he did so the personal qualities and influence which had settled the Manitoba problem of 1896 could adjust those of 1917. If he did not win, his supporters, combined with the Liberals behind the Unionist Government, might be strong enough to revolutionize political conditions when the war rvas over.
Now, it may be possible that the right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had some idea that that would happen. I think the events of the last few days would go to bear out the fact that he did show a good deal of foresight in that respect. We have found member after member-elected in support of Union Government-going over to the Opposition, and the excuse they make is that it is by reason of the tariff. Well, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that if any member of the House would be justified in breaking with the Government on the Tariff issue it would be those who are in favomr of the old protective policy-that policy which has been departed from by the Government in order to meet the demands or the requests of hon gentlemen on the cross benches. In order to carry on, and in order to insure that there should be harmony in this 'Country, the Government have 'conceded a good deal along this line. I am not saying that they have gone too far. I am not an extreme protectionist, I believe that a policy of moderate protection is necessary in this country; but I think the Government were entitled to some consideration from those hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred when in response to their wishes they conceded what they did in the matter of a reduction in the tariff. For example, two hon. gentlemen spoke in this House last week, and they took the ground that they were changing their political allegiance because of the fact that the tariff policy was now established and they could not see any hope for a reduction. Now the Government have made no such intimation either to the House or to the country. The Finance Minister has intimated-just as his predecessor intimated a year ago- that inquiries would be made into industrial

and other conditions after which the tariff would be readjusted to suit the conditions shown to exist. What more could be done than that? Of what use would it be to conduct an inquiry into Canadian conditions if you had settled upon your tariff policy before hand? The Government's tariff policy will depend upon the result of the inquiry which is to be made, and I aim strongly of the opinion that if it had not been for the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite in the last Parliament, we would now have had a tariff commission that would have been able to place evidence before the Government, and this matter would have been dealt with ere this. However, that is the condition in which we find matters with respect to the tariff to-day. The tariff is the sole and absorbing topic of discussion by hon. gentlemen opposite. They are now endeavouring to justify the stand which they have taken. They are attempting to disorganize the Government of this country and make it impossible for the administration of public affairs to be carried on. The members of the so-called Agrarian party refer to the amendment of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) as a milk and water amendment, and they say that if he could have heard the Budget before he framed that amendment he never would have worded it in such a way. However, they were going to vote a want of confidence in the Government anyway, and so it did not matter much what the amendment contained. To those hon. gentlemen to whom I refer it does not matter what an amendment may contain so long as they can express a want of confidence in Sir Robert Borden and his Government. But that is not what the people are asking for; they are asking my hon. friends to be consistent. The hon. member for Marquette spoke for an hour and a half this afternoon, and the greater portion of his address was devoted to pointing out the ideal conditions hat exist in England, and then he suggested that agriculture should be looked after in this country. The hon. member has had the opportunity to acquire an intimate knowledge of Canadian agriculture, and if he takes the same interest in that industry which he claims he does he would have noticed that only within the last week efforts	were being made
in Great	Britain to	import into
that country breeding stock from Canada, but the British regulations will not permit it. It was admitted in the discussion which 185J
took place that the regulations with regard to cattle, which ostensibly were adopted in order to prevent foot and mouth disease reaching the cattle of Great Britain, were really uncalled for because there had never been a single case of the disease ini Canada; which went to show that the imposition of those regulations was mere camouflage, that in reality it was admitted a form of protection. But the farmers of Great Britain came to the conclusion that in special cases it would be advisable to permit the importation of cattle from Canada; they found from our dairy records that the butter fat production of some of our cows exceeded the best records of the cows of the Old Land by over 10,000 pounds per head.
Why don't they frankly admit that they have adopted protection so far as the farmers of Great Britain are concerned? The revenues collected there will indicate that in many inetances they have protection. Look at the	methods adopted to
check the importation of American automobiles: in order to enable the British automobile industry to get on its feet again the Government of Great Britain imposed what amounted to practically a prohibition on the importation of American automobiles. Those things have taken place in a country which for many years had a protective tariff, until Great. Britain obtained undisputed supremacy as a manufacturing country, and the peopte felt that they could remove the tariff and compete with the world. Their conditions were most favourable, for their manufacturing industries were well established and their commerce held undisputed sway on the high seas. But are conditions in Canada similar to those in Great Britain? When the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) says that we should have a fiscal policy identical with that which prevails in the Old Land, I would ask him if he would allow protection for some agricultural products, if necessary, such as has been adopted in Great Britain? I would point out, Sir, that people learn by experience, but the experience that costs something is the experience that is the most valuable to us.


Oliver Robert Gould: Hear, hear.


Donald Sutherland: Canada set about that development with a resolute spirit that commanded the admiration of the world. They built canals, harbours, elevators and railways, and in the process they laid the foundations of a great nation. They were determined that they would be no more at the beck and call of any other nation, and never again will they be placed in the position they were in in 1868. Undoubtedly the recollection of those days was a strong factor in deciding the election of 1911. And yet some hon. gentlemen to-day are prepared to permit such a highly protected country as the United States to compete with our manufacturers on an even footing. Why? Simply because some goods could be bought cheaper in the States than in Canada.
The duties on agricultural implements are held up as one of the oppressive handicaps that the agriculturist has to contend with. While the hon. member for Marquette was speaking I could not help thinking of some evidence given by the general manager of the United Grain Growers, Limited, a year ago to the effect that they had a great number of subsidiary companies. The hon. member for Marquette referred to one of those subsidiary companies this afternoon, which he stated on ,an investment of $100,000 had made profits in 1917 to the tune of $500,000. Surely a pretty good record. He endeavoured to remove the impression that that statement had made on the minds of a good many people by referring to the volume of business which the company transacted. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid) also referred to that company in his speech the other night, and stated that the United Grain Growers, Limited, the parent company-he used the words " parent company " when referring to these profits of $500,000-had returned those profits into the pockets of the farmers. I want to take issue with the hon. member on that- point. The United Grain Growers, Limited, is an incorporated company on exactly the same footing as any other company, and it has not divided up its profits with the farmers. Nor is it doing so in connection with the profits of many of its subsidiary companies. The hon. member for Mackenzie piay know, because he is a director of the United Grain Growers, Limited, and he doubtless had good reason for qualifying his statement when he asserted that the parent ,company paid those profits back to the shareholders in dividends and cheaper machinery and so forth. As a matter of fact the shares of the United Grain Growers, Limited, were quoted at $25 a fMr. Sutherland.]
share, and I think the number any one shareholder can hold is limited to ten shares.


John Flaws Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman is not stating the facts correctly.	.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The statement made by the hon. gentleman does not refer to the hon. member for Mackenzie personally; therefore there is no question of privilege.


Donald Sutherland: During the war
years the United Grain Growers, Limited, undoubtedly made enormous profits, ranging from 44 to 65 per cent, and in this particular instance 500 per cent. I do not know what some of their other subsidiary companies may have made. But I want to point out that the United Grain Growers, Limited, do not hand those profits back to the farmers, the farmer who has no shares in the company gets exactly 'the same treatment as the shareholder does, with the exception that the latter receives a dividend of 8J per cent on his shares for which he paid $30, and his holding is limited, I believe, to ten shares. Many of the shareholders hold only one or two shares merely in order to have a vote. But there is this to be remembered, that the United Grain Growers, Limited, have reaped enormous profits from the fact that they are doing business with the farmers of Western Canada.


John Flaws Reid: Hear, hear.


Donald Sutherland: The tariff is the terrible bugbear of the farmers of the West we are told. Why did not the hon. member for Marquette and the hon. member for Mackenzie, the president and one of the prominent directors of the company, tell this House that the United Grain Growers, Limited, with their president a member of the Government, had purchased enormous quantities of American machinery a year ago and were holding them in bond expecting a reduction in the tariff at that time? Why was that statement not made to the House? A member of the Government president of the United Grain Growers. Limited, with inside 'information-his company profiting to that extent! I placed some questions on the Order Paper this (year with a view to ascertaining what amount of machinery had been so held by these people without result. But the evidence of the general manager of the United Grain Growers, Limited, shows that

the profits they made on the machinery which they imported into this country, I think it was in 1917, was 22.6 per cent. They do 'business with their customers on a spot cash basis. They have no agents. They have warehouses, and if a farmer wants a machine he can go there and get it, but he has to plank down the cash before he gets it,-and they simply charge him 22.6 per cent. He buys a binder for $250; the tariff at 124 per cent would be $31.25,-because a considerable reduction has been made in the tariff in order to meet the demands of such unreasonable gentlemen as the member for Marquette. I consider him unreasonable in that the pressure Which was brought to bear on 'the Government a year ago, when they conceded these things to him, should have (been sufficient to cause him to carry on and not try to disrupt and disorganize the Government at that time. Well, it is well known that binders and other like implements will with reasonable caTe, last fifteen years, so that the amount of duty when spread oveT the life of the binder is not very much,-$31.25 on a binder costing $250. But the hon. member for Marquette did not point out that the United Grain Growers, Limited, want $52.87 profit on that binder from the farmer who is he claims benefited by the profits made by this company. Where do .all these surplus profits go? And there are other subsidiary 'Companies as well. I am afraid that I shall not be able to get through before six o'clock, but I want to assure you that other matters in connection with the administration of the Department of Agriculture while the president of the United Grain Growers, Limited, was in the pay of that company and a member of the Government will require some investigation before this Parliament prorogues- an investigation to which the people of Canada are entitled.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Donald Sutherland: When the House rose at six o'clock I was making some reference to the profits on agricultural machinery made by the United Grain Growers, Limited. Whereas the duty on agricultural machinery is 12ft per cent the company shows a profit on the agricultural machinery handled of 21.6 per cent. This is borne out by the evidence given by the General Manager before
the Cost of Living Committee. I was also proceeding before the House rose to refer to another branch of the business carried on by this company. There has been a good deal of controversy between grain men and others, with regard to the manner in which the profits of the company have been disposed of. I think I have shown conclusively, and no evidence to the contrary has been submitted to the House, that the only advantage the shareholder receives is a dividend of 84 per c'ent on the stock that he purchases. That has been the average in recent years, and in no case has he received more than 10 per cent on the capital invested, which is limited to a few shares. I noticed in the Winnipeg papers of January 15, 1919, an article with reference to the profits from overages. I shall quote one paragraph of the article,
which is signed by W. J. Christie.


John Flaws Reid: What paper is the hon. gentleman quoting from?


Donald Sutherland: The Farmers'
Telegram and Family Magazine. The article is as follows:	:
In the above year-	j
That is 1917,
-the company made from overage, which was the rightful property of the farmer, much more than they paid the shareholders in dividends. From information received from one of the officers, the Grain Growers, Ltd., have from 30,000 to 40,000 stock subscribers, who are principally the farmers of the prairie provinces, and if properly operated on protected lines it could be of great benefit to the farmers of Canada. The average individual holding is about $50. The management and directors seem to use the 30,000 or 40,000 shareholders to sing their praises, for which they pay them a dividend of 10 per cent, or an average of about $5.00 per year each, and they actually took a greater amount from the farmers by way of excessive dockage on grain shipped through them, for which they give no value. This is certainly a cheap system of advertising their company, but expensive to the farmers.
The farmers of Canada cannot expect much assistance from the United Grain Growers, Limited, either by legislation or in any other way, while they take from them the grain overage, which is the property of the farmer, sell it and apply the proceeds to their own use. If the president of the United Grain Growers' Limited, who is a cabinet minister at Ottawa, advocated any change In the tariff on agricultural implements, would not the question be asked him: " How can you conscientiously ask for any further protection to the farmer when the company of which you are president accepts the grain overage that is the rightful property of the farmer, and applies it to the use of your company?" It would be like the freckled-faced man selling a concoction to remove freckles. The United Grain Growers, Limited, have repre-

been an enormous falling off in dairy produce for the last two years. Ending February this year there was a decrease of 45,000,000 pounds in cheese, an increase in butter and in condensed milk, but in the aggregate a falling off of 24,075,779 pounds. That is the situation that this country is up against and in the face of all this we had the regulations that were enacted by the Board of Commerce that was turned loose on this country at the last session of Parliament. The facts are already in evidence, and they demand immediate attention on the part of the Government. It is the duty of the Government to see that something is done because I will venture to predict that during the present year you will see, month by month, evidences that the policy that was inaugurated under the hon. member for Marquette when the Minister of Agriculture supplemented by the Board of Commerce is going to prove a very serious one indeed.
The hon. member in endeavouring to justify his withdrawal from the Government went on to deal, as he has dealt this afternoon, with the tariff. The tariff was responsible for all the ills that this country was suffering from and it was necessary for him to get out of the Government although the Government had conceded a . good deal to him along the line which he had been advocating. The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) whom I am glad to see in the House to-night, will have a fairly good knowledge of what took place in the Government in connection with that matter. The hon. member for Marquette availed himself of the opportunity of that time to refer to the province of Ontario to state how agriculture had become decadent and that it looked to him as though it might very soon be that agriculture would become a lost art in that province. He asserted that production was not as great as it was thirty years ago. That was a bold statement to make and a statement which can not be substantiated. It was a statement which was absolutely without any justification. He stated that:
The Prime Minister invited me to join this Government, in a sense representing that body of organized public opinion to which I have referred.
Organized public opinion? The United Grain Growers, Limited is the organized public opinion which the hon. gentleman represented when he went into the Government. His subsequent conduct would lead you to believe that he had proved
[Mr. Sutherland.!
faithful to the company with which he was and is connected. He says:
Furthermore-and the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) knows it-he can travel through Ontario as I have travelled through it, and he will find, not hundreds, but thousands, of abandoned farms in that province.
Poor old Ontario with her thousands of abandoned farms !
Within the last two years I saw myself in a twelve-mile drive in the county of Huron, one of the best counties of Ontario, six vacant farms, and I have no reason to doubt the statements I have made.
I will venture to state -that he cannot find an abandoned farm in the county of Huron. It is true many farms -are much larger than they were and it is also true that the 'agricultural population is not as great as it was a few years ago. There are reasons for that. Western Canada was opened up dur-that time, and the sons of the farmers of Ontario have gone west by tens of thousands, taken up homesteads and become citizens of the West. But there are opportunities in Ontario that there were not thirty years ago and I am proud of the fact that we have industrial concerns in Ontario where our young men can go and that there are opportunities for them to engage in business and the professions it they do not wish to carry on farming operations, whereas, before that, they had to go to the United States or some other country 'to do so. We have these opportunities in Canada to-day and that condition is much preferable than that our young men should have to go to tsome other country to find openings in commercial life. Agriculture has been dragging in Ontario for a number of years. Why? The young men on the farms in Ontario volunteered just as well a* those in other walks of life considering the conditions surrounding them. I have in mind three farmers, neighbours of mine, with only two sons each. All these boys volunteered and went overseas. How could you expect their fathers to carry on as well under these conditions? Yet we have a party in this province that are endeavouring to libel the farmers and to cast odium upon them by saying that they were favourable to being exempted from military service during the war. That is not the case because during the war they carried on as well as -they could although they were badly handicapped by reason of the fact that the men who had formerly sought employment on the farm had gone to the war. As a rule they were among the newcomers to this

country, they were British born, they were the first to answer the call and they rushed to the colours but they are again coming back, they are coming into Ontario in large numbers and we will soon overcome the conditions we have had to lace during the past few years.
It would be unfortunate at this time if it were instilled in the minds of the people that there is a possibility that we were going to upset the fiscal conditions of this country. That same old agitation was going on previous to 1896. There was a feeling of unrest and uncertainty previous to that time by reason of the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite but once they came into power the manufacturers, and those who had money to invest, realized they were going to adhere to the old, stable policy which had been in force in this country. The result was that capital obtained confidence, people put their money into industries and w'e had prosperity by reason of the fact that uncertainty had been removed from the minds of the people. It is up to the people of Canada to-day to put those w(ho are endeavouring to stir up trouble and discontent where they properly belong. It is a remarkable thing, it is very significant, that it was only a few days after the hon. member for Marquette severed his connection with the Government that there broke out in his native province what you might call an insurrection. You all know what happened in connection with the strike in the city of Winnipeg and it is not necessary to refer to it here. You know how the eyes of the people were turned in that direction and it was well known that there was a determined effort being made to bring about a condition in this country similar to that which they have in Russia. The 0. B. U. was in evidence at Winnipeg at that particular time. I do not refer to these things with any degree of pleasure but it is just as well to call a spade a spade and be done with it and get rid of some of this camouflage.
Yes, the province of Ontario, as the hon. member says, suffered during the war by reason of the scarcity of farm labour. The farmers in that province have had a good deal to contend with, but they are not the only people that have had to encounter difficulties in that respect. This movement that is on foot is not confined to Canada or the United States, it has been general throughout the world-the movement from the country to the cities and towns has been a world-wide movement. Two weeks ago I noticed in the Detroit Free Press an
article referring to what was taking place in the state of Michigan, which is similar in many respects to the province of Ontario. This is what Mr. G. W. Dickinson, manager of the Michigan State Fair, had to say with reference to the Lansing official report which dealt with this matter:
" The public does not half realize the importance of that report," said Mr. Dickinson. " We have a tremendous housing shortage here in Detroit, but out in the state there are 30,300 vacant homes. In Detroit, they would take care of at least 150,000 people, and considering the ample size of most country homes and the congestion here, they probably would accommodate close to 250,000 persons.
" Information in this report is not altogether new to the Fair personnel. Our county agents have been sending in isolated reports showing the same tendency for several months.
It is not poor land that is idle. Great portions of it is right at our doors in Oakland county-which is not only the most fertile of soil, but is also practically a backyard garden for the great manufacturing cities of Detroit and Pontiac. Next winter we may have our pockets full of money, but without food and coal."
That is the condition of affairs in the state of Michigan. Mr. Harry R. O'Brien, writing in the Canadian Farm and quoting in an article from the Saturday Evening Post, states:
One of the questions discussed by this writer is the housing problem in cities. He cites case after case of empty houses in the country, while the people in neighbouring towns are forced to crowd together two, three, four and more families in a single dwelling. In a country town in Kentucky of 6,000 souls there are but two houses that are not homes of at least two families, and in some cases in this town as high as six families are living in one house. On five of the main roads leading out from that town, within a radius of less than ten miles, there are, at least, twenty-seven vacant farm houses-standing idle with no one living in them. This is only one of the particular instances cited. They could be multiplied many times over in every State. Cities and towns are overcrowded, while thousands of farm houses all over the country are vacant.
That is the condition of affairs in the United States. Why, then, does the hon. member single out the province of Ontario and try to make things much worse than they really are. We have this good excuse for being short of farm labour in that province that the farm labourers and the farmers' sons were at the Front doing their duty. I say it ill becomes any man who had the distinguished honour of being chosen a member of the Government to break faith with the people who sent him here, because it is nothing else than that. If those hon. gentlemen who have crossed from this side to the cross benches find

that it is necessary for them to vote against the Government on the tariff question which was not an issue at the last election there is only one consistent thing for them to do, and that is to go back to the electors who sent him here, and say, " I can no longer support the Government." Let them do that instead of endeavouring to form the nucleus of a party with the object of wrecking the Government. I am satisfied that I am right in my views as to what is contemplated because of the prediction made by Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier before the Union Government was formed, and which I have already given to the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are hoping to wreck the Government by bringing small detachments of members from this side over to their ranks-some of whom might be characterized as the hon. members on the cross benches have characterized the amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding):	If I
cannot support the Government on a measure such as we are considering to-day. especially when an amendment has been moved which means a vote of want of confidence in Sir Robert Borden and his colleagues, there is a certain consistent course for me to pursue, and that is to hand my resignation to the people who sent me here. That and no other course should be followed by those who have any regard for the confidence which was placed in them by the .people under the peculiar conditions which existed in the fall of 1917. I believe that breeding counts for something in the long run. We have on this side descendants of Blakes and Mowats, and I venture to say you will not find men with blood of that kind in their veins doing such a thing in the case of a Government elected as this Government was in 1917.
I have already spoken at greater length than I intended but there are a number of other matters to which I would like to refer. At this critical period, when public confidence is so necessary, no one should do anything to unduly agitate the public mind. Undoubtedly there is unrest in the country, and it is quite natural that there should be. Then, too, the cost of living is a very serious matter indeed. Hon. gentlemen opposite ask: Are these taxes that are levied going to benefit the consumer? Who are the consumers, let me ask? Is not every citizen of this country a consumer, and will he not find it necessary to deny himself of something in order to meet the demands that are being made upon him? The hon. member for Marquette complained that the income tax imposed in

Canada was not as high as that levied in Great Britain. In his speech the hon. member could not get away from Great Britain. That is his ideal in regard to the tariff, and fiscal matters of every kind; but it must be remembered that Great Britain is an old country, with long established industries. Why did not the hon. gentleman refer to the income taxes that are being levied in the United States? Had he done so he would have found that the income taxes collected in Canada compare very favourably with those levied in the country to the south. The opinion of the people of the United States with regard to Canada is evidently a good deal better than that entertained by the hon. member for Marquette. In this connection let me quote a few paragraphs which appeared in the New York Tribune of December 19, 1917:
Canada "Carries On".
Last April on the shell scarred slopes of Vimy Ridge Canada at the front gave proof of her courage, her devotion, her strength. The "maple leaf" planted on one of the great bulwarks of German tyranny in France was a final evidence of the attitude of one-half of North America to the Boche threat to civilization.
Before Vimy the Canadians had borne their part nobly. It was soldiers of the Dominion who broke the first weight of the German thrust after the gas attack in the Second Battle of Ypres. The British Empire will long remember gratefully the sacrifices of the "Little Black Devils" and the "Princess Pats" on that blood soaked ground about Ypres where the veteran army of Britain-the "old contemptibles"-[DOT] found their glory and their graves in October and November, 1914.
Of the Canadians at the front there was no question. They had seen the German thing as it was. Their comrades had been "gassed" and crucified. Their fellow Canadians had fought cleanly and bravely against a barbarism which expressed itself in methods and in tricks which were beneath the contempt of white men and below the level of savages. Canada at the front knew the Oerman-but what of Canada behind the front, three thousand miles away- would that line hold, too?
Well, the world has its answer now. The politicians doubted. The weak, the weary, the conquered and the disloyal spread their forecasts and proclaimed the outcome. They are answered ; so are doubting politicians and faint hearted patriots the world over. As the American democracy found itself by re-electing Lincoln in 1854, the Canadian democracy has justified democracy and itself in 1917 by re-enlisting for the war, by accepting the man and the methods which alone promise victory.
It is a stirring thing, this victory of democracy in Canada over all the forces which make for surrender and for worse than surrender. The voice of the first Allied electorate to be heard in many, many months is a sign for all Allied statesmen to observe and heed. Canada has sent 400,000 men to Europe; Canada has borne more than 125,000 casualties; but to the call of duty Canada's response is immediate and unmistakable. It is a response which will be heard the
W

world over. It is a response which will be noted in Berlin as well as in London. Is it too much to suspect it may even be heard in Rome?
The United States will congratulate and pay just tribute to its neighbouring democracy tor its decision. In a time of momentary pessimism Canada has cheered all of us. In an hour of depression and weakness Canada has shown the road of courage and victory illuminated by the spirit of self-sacrifice and devotion. She has been faithful to her dead; to those of her sons murdered as well as those slain in fair fight.
That was the opinion of the better element of the people of the United States with regard to our attitude during the war.
Canada will continue to carry on, and she is not going to be divided into classes. Any one who endeavours to set class against class in this country is doomed to failure, for our people have too much good 3ense to be led away by any such false cry, the folly of which is apparent to every right-thinking person. As the inheritors of a great country we have a duty that we must perform, and the eyes of the world are centred on us to-day largely by reason of the sacrifices and record made by our gallant soldiers at the front. The need of the hour is great, but if we do our duty by ourselves and by our country, if we remain true to ourselves, during the next few years we shall see an unparalleled and undreamt of development of our resources. United States capitalists are anxious to invest money and to establish new industries here in order to develop our resources; in our great western country, where as yet we have merely scratched a little of the surface, we have unlimited resources which, when developed, will be a reproach to those who now would advocate a departure at this critical stage of our history from the old established policy upon which has been laid the foundations of our national prosperity. Are we going to take chances again, as we did years ago when we were young and weak on a change of fiscal policy after having laid down a truly Canadian policy, in order that somebody, somewhere, may make a try out with some fantastic theory? And, Mr. Speaker, I may say that if no stronger arguments are advanced in support of that theory than we have heard this afternoon from the leader of the Agrarian party, I am inclined to think that that party has reached its meridian and is already on its decline.
In conclusion I want to again emphasize the fact, that over 80 per cent of our agricultural produce is now consumed at home, and I would again draw attention to the importance of the home market, which is the
most valuable that our farmers can have, and I would warn them that if tne policy now being advocated by the Agrarian group ever goes into effect agriculture will be the first to suffer, for it is not only our industrial interests that need a protective policy let us get full credit for the quality and standard of our products.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) says that protection is the greatest fallacy that was ever dreamt of. I can remember when the leader of the Government some years ago was endeavouring to put a vote through this House in order to strengthen and render more efficient the British Navy, my hon. friend from Red Deer contended that even although it would cost more money to build ships in Canada, the policy for us to adopt was to have the wheels of industry turning here, to have our workmen employed, and that better wages for Canadian workmen meant better living conditions for their families. So my hon. friend has not always been a consistent advocate of free trade. On that occasion, notwithstanding his great admiration for the Mother Land-which we all feel just as strongly as he doe3-he advocated Canadian ships built by Canadian workmen.
Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, we have a country which nature has endowed with everything that a man can desire, and which holds the promise of a mighty future. And, if we cannot make a country with such material it will be because we are not true to ourselves and if we are not true to ourselves be sure our sin will find us out.


Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vereheres):: Mr. Speaker, I hold no
brief for the United Farmers' party, and I will not assume to-night the responsibility of answering the violent attacks made by my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) on the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Halbert). Several hon. members of the United Farmers' party have yet to speak, and I am sure that when the opportunity is given to them they will fully answer the hon. member who has just taken his seat.
Before discussing the Budget, however, I think it is my duty to answer a statement made by the hon. member for South Oxford to the effect that when a delegation of the farmers of the various provinces came to Ottawa to try to force the Government to keep its promises to exempt their sons from military service, that movement originated with the Minister of Agriculture of

There are no British or foreign credits there. Let us see further. In the Auditor General's Report of 1919, part ZZ, at page 228, I find the following:
Expenditure by the Chief Paymaster on account of pay and other expenses of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, vouchers for which have
not been received	$129,308,233 14
Less refunds deposited to the credit of the Receiver General by the Chief Paymaster	 7,668,216 52

I do not find any British or foreign credits there either. Is my hon. friend still satisfied that these are British or foreign credits? Let us look further into the matter. On Friday, the 18th of May, 1917, the late Auditor General, Mr, Fraser, appeared before the Special Committee on Returned Soldiers and gave evidence regarding some accounts of the Militia Department. His evidence, which will be found on page 1116 to 1124 of that report, contains a few lines which will show you how the people's money is being taken care of by this Government. On page 1119 of the report I read the following:
By Mr. Bennett:
Q. That is pretty well looked after now.
He was speaking of these amounts. The Auditor General, Mr. Fraser, at that time, replied:
I will tell you what was done. When I was over there, and discussing these things, I said: "You ought to have some system of checking with Ottawa periodically." The result of that suggestion was that cards were taken from all the ledgers, giving the man's name, identity, and so forth, with the state of his account on the 30th November, and they have sent a staff out here who are engaged in checking oft the accounts with the Militia Department books.

Q. And the statement has been made that the result has been very satisfactory?-A. I do not know whether it will be satisfactory to the Committee to hear that they have found there were hundreds of thousands of dollars gone, and only a comparatively small portion of it recovered.
Further on at page 1122 the Auditor Genera] was questioned as follows:
By Hon. Mr. Murphy:
Q. In connection with the overpayments of which yoii spoke, I suppose that efforts are constantly being made to recover these amounts? -A. Tes, there is a staff, I do not know how many, engaged on that work.
Q. How do these efforts result, are the moneys returned, or refunded by the people who received cheques they should not have received? -A. Those would be sums paid at Ottawa here?
Q. Tes.-A. I* do not know exactly what your committee here is appointed to inquire into.
Q. Everything in connection with this subject ; is there anything in that connection upon which this committee might obtain further information?-A. I certainly think there should be some inquiry into this question ; I understand there have been very serious leakages in connection with these refunds.
Q How do you mean?-A. In conection with refunds that have been made and not accounted for.
Q. Refunds made to Ottawa?-A. Tes. I am only giving hearsay now, but I would not say it unless I thought it were true. This is so vast a subject, that I cannot audit it in the way I audit other accounts, unless I create a staff such as they have or duplicate the work and keep the accounts.
Q. How does this leakage occur to which you refer?-A. Sometimes cases where the person has had a separation allowance continued after the man was discharged and when it is found out after a while, the department asks the parties to make a refund. The refund comes back in cash, possibly, or money orders, or cheques, and I understand there is a lot of that money that has never gone to the credit of the Receiver Genera],
Q. Have there been any reports made to you on that subject?-A, No.
Q. Would there be any reports made to you in the ordinary course of events?

A. No, they do not usually tell me those things. It is just like the paymasters, there are defalcations of paymasters, quite a lot of them, some of them from overseas. I will give you one instance of a man who was, I think it was $3,500 behind. He was overseas, he was dealt with over there and sent back to Canada. He was discharged and sent back to Canada to be dealt with here. He was dealt with here, by putting him in command of a new regiment as colonel. He is now over in France, and he has never paid up this amount. I asked them to commence deducting this amount from his pay and they said : "Oh, we can't do that, the pay is to Colonel So and So; that was Paymaster So and .So, we have no authority to deduct it from Colonel So and So's pay."
Q. Was it known at headquarters that he was a defaulter?-A. Tes, certainly, it is shown on the books there.
iSir, there can be no doubt in the minds of the representatives of the people as to the ultimate destination of this $121,000,000.

But the Minister of the Interior says something else in his reply:
But the hon. member for Guysborough or the hon. member for Red Deer, knows that if there is anything he does not understand in the Report of the Auditor General, there is a standing committee of this House for the purpose of investigating every item questioned, and although we have been in session three months, that committee has never been called. If there be any reason for calling it, hon. members have it in their power to have it called, and if there be anything dark it will be revealed.
First of all let me say, Sir, that this answer does not stand on its legs. It is true we have been here three months, but although we have repeatedly asked for the fourth volume of the Auditor General's Report it was only forthcoming about a week ago. But the minister's answer means something more. It has a much more important significance. He says that if the Opposition members believe that there is something wrong they have the power to call the Public Accounts Committee and if there is anything dark it will be revealed. But suppose we do not call that committee, what then? The position assumed by the Government is this:	"Let the people be
robbed if the Opposition is not clever enough to see it. It is not our business; what do we care?" Well, Sir, I submit that, whether sitting on your right or on your left, every member is in duty bound to look after the accounts and to see that the people's money is not improperly expended.
Now I come to the omissions of the Budget. First of all, I wish to call attention to a matter which I have brought up every time the income tax has been discussed in this House. I refer to the exemption of $200 for every child under seventeen years of age. I believe, Sir, that the amount is far too small and that it should be increased to $500. To any one who has been blessed with children it is only too well known that $200, nay, $500, is hardly sufficient for the expenses in connection with one child. I would even go further in my request of the Minister of Finance, who I am very sorry is not in his place. I would ask him to grant total exemption from income taxation to the father of ten children, and I trust he will take up my suggestion in committee. After all, it is the Canadian-born person who makes the best Canadian citizen, and if my hon. friend refuses to accede to my request I shall perforce come to the conclusion that, instead of following the precept of the Bible, "Crescite et multiph camini," he has the same idea as is enter-

tained by a well known mayor in the province of Ontario, Mayor Booker, who is reported by the Ottawa Journal as follows:
Hamilton, March 29:	Mayor Booker announced himself an, advocate of birth control and thinks the time will come when Canada will adopt the Holland system. "Some families are altogether too large," he said. "One or two children are enough for most homes."
I am sure, Sir, that this mayor of a large Ontario city must be a dog fancier, and I hope the Minister of Finance does not approve of the theories of this premier advocate of race suicide.
Regarding the income tax, I have another suggestion to make. In England they differentiate between incomes earned and incomes unearned. For instanc}, i' a man has an income of, say, $6,000 which is derived from investments in stock, real	estate, deposits in banks, he
pays	a larger tax than the man
who derives his income from hie daily labour. And that is only fair. If the man who has an income of $6,000 derives it from investments in stocks or deposits in banks or investments in real estate, when he dies or becomes an invalid his family is left with a capital of at least $100,000 and has practically the same income as when he was alive On the other hand, when a man who derives his income from his work dies or becomes an invalid his family is left penniless. I therefore submit that it is only just that such a man should be taxed to a less extent than the other, in order that he might be able either to take out insurance on his life or to put by a little money to provide for old age and the sustenance of hi6 family when he is incapacitated.
But, Sir, the most glaring omission of the Budget Speech-evidently it is not an omission in the opinion of the minister, although it is, in mine and, I have no doubt, in that of the people of 'Canada-is the fact that he does not say a word about reducing the high cost of living. Nay, his proposals are rather apt to increase that cost. I should like to call your attention, Sir, to the fact that up to now not one member supporting the Government has said a word about the high cost of living; not one word has been said about the sufferings of the middle and poorer classes; not one plea has been made nor one suggestion offered to alleviate the burden which threatens to crush the taxpayer of modest means. Every member who has spoken supporting the Government has made an eloquent plea for protection, ha6 brought forward figure after figure to prove that
protection is necessary for manufacturing industries, and has stated this to be an indispensable fiscal policy. Those hon. members who spoke in this strain spoke strictly from the point of view of the privileged class, without making a single utterance regarding the consumer, ignoring him entirely in the problems we have to solve. Yet the middle and poorer classes form the great majority of the people. They are the ones who most feel the burdens of taxation and of the high cost of living. But it is characteristic of this Government that in framing their policies they take care of their wealthy friends and entirely ignore the needs of the common people. I am not surprised. I have been in this House for over two years and I have yet to see a measure brought down by the Government which carries with it an honest purpose to relieve the consumer. Am I exaggerating? Shall I be charged with making an assertion for a political purpose? Then I reply: Can any hon. member on the other side stand up and say that what I am saying is not correct? I repeat, Mr. Speaker, and I emphasize, that not only has no such measure been ever introduced, but the Government has encouraged profiteering with a fraternal care and allowed it to thrive and fatten. We had an inquiry into the high cost of living and startling facts were disclosed. The Government instituted the Board of Commerce which cost so much money to the people of the country, and which went around the country inquiring into the cost of ham sandwiches and false teeth. With what result? The chairman has resigned because he was tied down in his decisions. The Board has been in existence for over a year and though many instances of rank profiteering were brought before it, yet not one arrest was made.
Before starting the Board had enough evidence to jail some of the profiteers. The manager of the Paton Manufacturing Company of Sherbrooke stated before the High Cost of Living Committee that his company was making 72 per cent, or 176 per cent on the invested capital. He stated furthermore that his company was not made for the glory of God nor for the glory of the people, but that it was carried on for the benefit of the shareholders. He should have been arrested as they arrest that kind of people in the United States. It was also proved at the same inquiry that the Dominion Textile Company had made 31 per cent, but 310 per cent on the invested capital, as was stated by the hon. member for Marquette this afternoon. The amount put into the company originally is different from the

amount which is represented to be the capital stock now because there was $5,000,000 of common stock issued which was all water.
Has the Government taken proceedings against this company. No, Sir. Instead of taking proceedings they have done better than that. I hold in my hand a return to an order of the House of Commons dated April 19, 1920, and it is a return asked for by myself. It is sessional paper No. 147. I find that the companies controlled by Sir Charles Gordon or the subsidiaries of the Dominion Textile Company, received from the Government of Canada $958,566.77 in the last six months. Let me explain. This report discloses the following facte. My first question was:
Amounts loaned or credits given by the Government of Canada:-
fa) To Greece;
(b) To Roumania.
The answer was this;
Amounts loaned) or credits given by the Government of Canada:
To Greece, $25,000,000.
To Roumania, $25,000,000.
My second question was as follows:
2.	The date these loans were granted or credits given.
The answer is:
(a) To Greece, April 15, 1919.
0b) To Roumania, April 2, 1919.
These loans were granted by Orders in Council.
3.	The nature of merchandise purchased by the Government of Canada and the charges in each case.
We will see later on what kind of merchandise was purchased. Now comes question No. 4, a most important question:
4.	The' names of commercial firms or persons from whom such goods were so purchased, specifying (a) the nature of goods in each case; (b) the amounts paid by the Government to these firms or persons in each ease and also the date of these 'payments.
As I said before, I have taken the amounts given to the Dominion Textile Company and the subsidiary companies. The subsidiary companies are the Montreal Cotton Company and Penman's , Limited. If you add the amount paid to Canadian Converters, in which I am informed the president of the Dominion Textile Company has a large interest, $111,751.20, you will find that Sir Charles Gordon, whose company was shown before the High Cost of Living Committee to have made profiteering profits, not only was not prosecuted, not only was not molested, but was given by the Government orders to the amount of $1,069,317.97 during the past six months and paid for by the money of the Canadian people.

But this document is very interesting. We have it that the Government has paid these firms with good Canadian money and charged the total amount to Roumania and Greece. Will we ever get this money back? I have very grave doubts. Roumania is bankrupt, Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy, and I am informed-and I wish some of the ministers would answer my question-that two interest instalments on the bonds that we hold from Roumania have not been met lately.
Let us glance rapidly over the return. I notice that the Department of Militia have sold the following goods in the last six months:
Woollens	$435,449	66Boots	
170,600	00Blankets	
276,750	00Sweaters	
22,500	00Total	$90*5,299	66
Or nearly $1,000,000 of goods sold in six months by the Government. I submit that is a very bad piece of business. These blankets, these woollen goods, these boots, these sweaters, for which the Government will probably never be paid, should first have been offered at auction to the Canadian people.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Were they military supplies?


Joseph Archambault: These are probably military supplies because they are sold by the Militia Department. In the United States very successful sales of army supplies were made by the Government to the people, and they helped to lower the cost of living. But as we go along this document becomes more and more interesting. I find on page 3 the following item:
Welland Vale Manufacturing .
Company, St. Catharines, June
19, 1920	$135,214 78
In looking at a very useful little book, the Parliamentary Guide, which was copiously used last year in respect to the figures of military enlistments in the different constituencies, I find that the president of the Welland Vale Manufacturing Company is a gentleman who was heard in this House for the first time this year, a gentleman who has never spoken here before, or very seldom that I can recall. The hon. gentleman in question made a very strong speech for protection last week, and an equally strong speech in favour of the Government. Who was that gentleman? No less a person than the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin).
On page 4 of the return, I find another item which is also very interesting:

Brantford Roofing Company, Brantford, $36,200.
Upon referring to the same little book I find that one of the directors of that company is that great apostle of protection, the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt).
But let me continue. Under the title of "Nails" I find:
The Maritime Nail Co., St. John. N.B.
Am I mistaken, Mr. Speaker, in stating that a few days ago we heard a speech from an hon. gentleman who confessed he had always been a free trader but that conditions had changed, and that he was now a protectionist and a supporter of the Government? Referring again to this book I "nailed" a director of the Maritime Nail Company-to be absolutely correct the president and managing director,-in the hon. member for St. John, N.B. (Mr. Elkin).


An hon. MEMBER:: How much did he
get?


Joseph Archambault: He got $69,168.73.


Mr. DUFF:: Very expensive nails.


Joseph Archambault: The hon. member is quite correct, they were very expensive nails.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Expensive protection, I should say.


Joseph Archambault: But let me go further. On page 5 I find another item:
The Monarch Knitting Company, Dunnville.
This company got a very small amount indeed-it only received the sum of $271,844.48. Sir, I could not find the name of the president of this company in the Parliamentary Guide. The hon. gentleman was probably wiser and more experienced, than some other hon. members. But I have here a very recent edition of the Annual Financial Review, bearing date of June 19, 1919, and I find at page 285 of that publication that the president of the Monarch Knitting Company is the hon. member from Haldi-mand (Mr. Lalor). I have still another item:


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Do not believe in protection.


Joseph Archambault: The fifth item reads:
The Sherwin-Williams Paint Company, $31,490.
I also find this item:
Canada Paint Company, $11,332.


Mr. DEVLIN:: To whom does that apply?


Joseph Archambault: At pages 345 and 346 of the same Annual Financial Review I find that the Canada Paint Company is a subsidiary company of the Sherwin-Williams Paint Company. I also find that it has been absorbed and is controlled by that company, and that the vice-president -who is also a director-of that company is no less a luminary than the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne).


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: If my hon. friend will make further search he will find that I am also a vice-president and director of a great many more companies than 'the one he has named.


Joseph Archambault: I have no doubt that my hon. friend is interested in many large companies. Now, Sir, I have only rapidly glanced through this return, and there are many other items which it might be of interest to place on Hansard. There is one for instance with respect to Mr. Lloyd Harris, or rather the Canada Steel Company in which that gentleman is interested. Mr. Harris is a gentleman as to whom we are well informed. He was Canadian Trade Commissioner in London, and did not forget himself in obtaining these orders. I have no comment to make regarding the profits realized in these transactions-I do not know what they are. There is no doubt all these hon. gentlemen I have mentioned are within the law-that is, they are within the letter of the law. But are they within the spirit of the law? Let me read to the House Section 15 of the Senate and House of Commons Act, Revised Statutes, 1906:
If any member of the House of Commons accepts any office or commission, or is concerned or interested in any contract, agreement, service or work which, hy this Act, renders a person incapable of being elected to, or of sitting or voting in the House of Commons, or knowingly sells any goods, wares or merchandise to, or performs any service for the Government of Canada, or for any of the officers of the Government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is paid or to be
Paid	the seat of such member shall
thereby be vacated, and his election shall thenceforth be null and void.
Section 19 provides as follows:
This Act shall not extend to disqualify any person as a member of the House of Commons 'by reason of his being-(a) a shareholder in any incorporated company having a contract with the Government of Canada.
Well, "shareholder" does not necessarily mean "director," and the prohibition against a member of the House of Commons selling any goods to the Government



does not apply to .such a one. That is true and those concerned "will answer that the Government has transacted .business with a company in which they were interested. That is also true. It is likewise true that they have transacted business not for the Government, not for the people of Canada, but 'for other countries. If this loophole satisfies their conscience, well and good. I do not wish to be understood as casting the least reflection on the honesty of the deals, but, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains, first, that the Government will probably never be reimbursed the moneys paid; second, that the Government bought goods from companies in which some members of Parliament are personally interested; third, that transactions of this nature unavoidably cast a shadow on parliamentary independence, and that in making such purchases the Government has done a great deal to keep "the boys" in line and to get them to put "a little pep and ginger" in their speeches.
But let us come now to the proposals of the Minister of Finance, especially to what he terms his excise luxury tax. I read in an Ottawa paper a few days ago that a large and wealthy manufacturer on reading the Budget Speech said: " Never touched me." Sir, that is the gist of the proposals. The manufacturer will consider it his right to make the consumer pay the additional charges; and Mr. Breadner, the Commissioner of Taxation, admitted that fact at a meeting in this city. There can be no doubt about the truth of that manufacturer's boast, " Never touched me." In other words, the tax will be paid by the consumer. Moreover, if the manufacturer or the merchant has to pay for the services of an extra accountant to keep track of these taxes, that cost will be charged to iverhead expenses, and the consumer will have the burden passed on to him.
I will not take up the time of the House in pointing out that a $45 suit is not a luxury, nor is a $9 pair of boots-unless made out of paper like the ones that this Government bought for the army at the beginning of the war. Similarly, all kinds of electroliers, gasoliers, patent medicines -the poor families' doctor-biscuits, preserves, jam, beer, ham, breakfast foods such as corn flakes and shredded wheat, coke- the fuel of the poor,-pickles, cheap curtains, are not luxuries but necessaries of life to our working people, and that the resolution strikes, not the wealthy, but the middle and the poorer classes.

And, Sir, may I remind you how uncouth and unfair are these proposals? If my hon. friend the Minister of Finance buys a $1,000 living-room suite, or a $1,000 mantel-piece; or if my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization buys a $32 mahogany waste-paper basket, neither of them will pay any luxury tax. But if a workingman buys a $5 gas fixture or gaso-lier he will pay a dollar tax. If I buy an electric fan, which is a luxury, I pay no luxury tax; but if I buy an electric iron, which is a necessity in every household, I have to pay the tax. If I buy an umbrella at $4, which, as every one will admit, is very useful when it rains, I will have to pay a 10 per cent tax; but if I buy a $10 walking stick it is so useful in bad weather that I am not required to pay any luxury tax. A wealthy man can 'buy wallpaper at $5 a yard free of luxury tax, the most expensive china for pink teas without being mulcted for any luxury tax; but inexpensive cut glass is taxed. If I go to the Chateau Laurier I shall be getting away cheaply if I pay $5 for my meal, but I do not pay any luxury tax on that indulgence; but if I buy a box of shredded wheat or a box of corn-flakes at 10 or 15 cents I have to pay a luxury tax.
There is no doubt that the minister had to find some means of providing money to meet the financial needs of the country, every one admits that,-although the Government is solely responsible for the present state of affairs. But the Government should have derived this revenue from other sources, for instance, from the wealthy classes. Instead of that the Government reduces the excess profits tax, although in England the Government have increased it from 40 to 60 per cent. Then, too, the Government should have enacted legislation to get at the war wealth. I wish it to be well understood, however, that I do not blame the people who made money during the war helping the cause by supplying materials. But I venture to say that our soldiers having fought in the trenches at $1.10 a day, the burden of taxation should not be put on their shoulders on their return from the front, but rather that the men who made lots of money during the war should now be asked to contribute to the country's needs in a much greater degree. Why, the evidence of wealth in this country is amazing; never has there been so much money for investment; new mergers are being formed every day;-a merger was effected four or five weeks ago, and we hear to-day that another is being consummated-every one

knows that our industries are flourishing, and that profits are climbing to a scale that was previously undreamt of in this country.
In England a committee of the House of Commons was appointed to consider the practicability of taxing war wealth whereby $2,750,000,000 could be collected from
75,000	war profiteers, and that committee has reported in favour of such a tax being imposed. It is true that that report has not been acted upon yet, but it is only a few weeks old, and besides, I have the proof here that it will be acted upon. Mr. Austen Chamberlain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his Budget Speech previous to the report of the committee, is reported by the Montreal Gazette of April 21, to have stated:
The Government apparently intends to levy a tax on war profits, to divert to the Treasury a part of the gains the war gave to many people. What form this taxation may take, and to what extent it will reach, is yet to be determined, the report of a committee now investigating the matter being awaited;
In France the. Government is adopting the same policy, and the New York Herald of April 17 contains the following despatch from its Paris correspondent:	.
France Plans to Share in Big War Fortunes. New Tax is to Force Profiteers to Disgorge Large Part of Their Wealth.
Paris, April 17.-War profiteers and others who have amassed millions of francs will have to disgorge a large part of their wealth, and wild orgies of spending, which have characterized French life since the armistice, will have to cease if the radical taxation now being considered by the Government goes into effect.
Despite the high prices, which cause constant grumbling in all classes, it seems that the great spending epidemic which the people here developed in the last year remains and is as strong as ever. Now, however, the Government has decided to get some of this money before it is too late.
Tentative proposals by the Finance Commission of the Government for a revision of the nation's financial policy, it was learned, will include extraordinary provisions with regard to revenue and increases in fortunes due to war profits, in some cases these increases in wealth amounting to as much as 60 per cent since January, 1914.
If the same policy was adopted in thi6 country, Sir, It would not be necessary for the Government to enact such a measure of taxation as is now proposed, reaching the least capable to pay and increasing the cost of living.
I said before that the Government were doing nothing regarding the reduction of the high cost of living. I pointed out last year what huge profits were being made by some of the milling and textile companies.
M6|
I could show you that the same profiteering, and even worse, is going on to-day; yet the Government is still practising the same criminal indolence and with the aid of the banks is permitting the most criminal gambling in the necessaries of life. Why, Sir, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. 'Rowell) will not tolerate crap shooting, race track bookmaking, or poker gambling, and will even blush at a picture of the Queen of Hearts; yet gambling in the most vital and essential articles and necessaries of life is permitted. John M. Baer, member of Cbngress for North Dakota, introduced a Bill to prevent gambling in the necessaries of life in the United States. His remarks in introducing the Bill may be summarized as follows:
The food gambler deals with what yon have to eat and wear, on margin, he does not sell what he has, but is one of the causes of the price-raising, by apparently passing the food from hand to hand until it reaches you. We have laws against crime of every sort and against criminals of every character save the criminal who gambles in the necessaries of life. There is not a bank in the country that will loan money with which to bet on a horse race, millions upon millions of dollars, however, are borrowed from banks and wagered on the market in an effort to hold up the price of commodities. Look at the recent market quotations; you will observe that the brokers are now selling meat, lard, butter, wheat, cotton and corn for October, November and December delivery. No one knows what the wheat crop, the cotton yield or the meat production of this country will be for this year and none of the commodities dealt with are as yet in existence. Let us prohibit these transactions by gamblers who do not have any interest in them except that of speculation.
These are the gist of the remarks of Mr. Baer, member for North Dakota, and tlhe Bill introduced provides that no person shall buy or sell any necessary of life unless it is tlhe intention to effect actual delivery of such necessary together with transfer of legal title, and the term "necessary" is held to include all products or by-products which are or may be manufactured into food for human beings, domestic animals or poultry, and includes also fuel, wearing apparel, or other commodity necessary to life. Is it not worth while considering this kind of legislation? Does the Government not believe that such legislation would decrease the high cost of living? I

do not say, Sir, that such a measure should be adopted, but I say very emphatically that legislation of this kind is worth studying and I hope that the Government will look into it.
This brings me to the subjeot of credits by the banks for speculation purposes and the extraordinary effect upon prices brought about by the concerted action of the banks in the United States in the curtailment of credit. It is not necessary for me to read an extract from the Montreal Gazette on this subject; all hon. members who read the papers observed the tremendous break in prices that has taken place in the United States and which began the moment the Federal Reserve Board concluded an arrangement with the banks under which credits should be curtailed to the manufacturers. This curtailing of. credit was brought about by the American Government; I see no reason why the Government of Canada could not do the same and thus afford some relief to the consumers of our own country.
Now, just one word about the tariff. I was greatly amused the other day to hear 'the Finance Minister state that a tariff commission would commence an investigation after prorogation. Sir, since this Government has been in power-or, rather, since a Tory Government has been in power -we have had promises of commissions to investigate the tariff, but they have not been forthcoming. In order to show the House how long ago a Tory Government promised a tariff commission, I will read a few lines from Hansard of 1911. You are aware that the Tory Government came into power in September, 1911. Well, in Hansard of the 29th of November of the same year, page 530, I find the following question put by Mr. Neely:
1.	Will the Government appoint a permanent Tariff Commission?
2.	If so, will the labour and the farming interests be allowed to nominate a majority of the representatives on such a commission?
Herb is the answer-and I am sorry that all the ministers are absent from their seats.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is one.


Joseph Archambault: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolimie) is here; I beg his pardon,-but he is the only one left. I read the answer to this question, as given by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden):
Authority from Parliament will be necessary and a measure will be introduced accordingly.
That, Sir, was in November, 1911, and every year since the Government have

promised commission after commission regarding the tariff, and they are making the same promise this year. Well, I can tell my hon. friends the members of the Farmers' party that if they depend upon the appointment of such a commission they will wait a long time. I can tell my hon. friends on the other side who are voting with the Government because they believe that such a commission will be appointed, that they will also have to wait a long time. As to my hon. friends on the right hand side of the House who do not desire the appointment of any such commission, they may sleep quietly; they will not be troubled with the nightmare of concurrent deflation of duties and depreciation of their bank accounts.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) spoke of the St. James by-election and asserted that the result of that election was a victory for protection. Sir, I took part in that election, and I am proud of it. I am proud of having contributed in bring to the House so talented a member as my hon. friend from St. James. There were two candidates in that election. The Government was not represented. Both candidates criticised the Government, and both promised that if elected they would work and vote against the Government. We talked about the tariff. I spoke on the tariff. I am not a free trader in practice; I am not a high protectionist either, but J am not in favour of the present tariff. I hate to see, for instance, the farmer paying the amount of duty he has to pay now on his agricultural implements. I hate to see the workingman and the men of the middle classes paying enormous duties on furniture and everything that is necessary for their households. That is my opinion of the tariff. I do not believe that we should take down all tariffs. Nobody who is aware of the conditions believes that, but I do say that the present tariff is too high. I stand by the platform of the Liberal party that was passed in August of last year in Ottawa.


Ernest Lapointe: So say we all.


Joseph Archambault: That is what 1 stated in the St. James election, and that is what my hon. friend the member for St. James stated, and he was elected by a tremendous majority.
Now I wish to refer briefly to a question that has been brought to my attention regarding the pay of the soldier. Some time ago I put a question on the Order Paper,

and the question and the answer will be found on page 2075 of Hansard:
1.	Have the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who received their pay in England or in France been paid the difference in exchange?
2.	If not, who received said benefit?
Sir Henry Drayton:
1.	All payments in sterling to personnel of the Overseas Military Forces of Canada during the years 1914-15-16-17 and '18 were converted to Canadian currency at the par rate of exchange, $4.8 63 to the pound and debited to their pay accounts at that rate. Payments in continental currencies were converted from such currency to sterling at a flat monthly rate of exchange established by the War Office, based on commercial rates, which in the case of French currency varied from five francs equals four shillings in 1915, to three and five pence in 1919.
2.	All payments to members of the C.E.F. Overseas were made out of moneys at the credit of the Dominion Government in the Bank of Montreal, London, which moneys were received from the Imperial Government' by way of advances for war purposes, at par, so that no benefit accrued to the Dominion Government by reason of exchange.
To form an idea of the tremendous amount of money involved in this question, let us examine some very conservative figures, much below the actual facts. Suppose we take the average pay of all the men, including the high pay of the officers and the small pay of the soldiers, as $48.60 a month. According to the answer to my question a man would have received for his $48.60 ten pounds sterling. Now let us take also a most conservative figure for the average value of the pound sterling during the war. Let us take it at $4.76. It went below that, but let us take that figure. On a pay of $48.60, when the man received ten pounds he only received $47.60. If he took that ten pounds, put it in an envelope and sent it to Canada to his mother or his wife, and they went to the bank to get it exchanged they would receive only $47.60 instead of $48.60, if the rate of exchange at that time was $4.76. Therefore the soldier or his dependent was out $1 a month. Let us now take also a very conservative figure as to the number of men. Let us cut the number in less than half and say 200,000 men. This would mean that the men have been done out of at least $200,000 a month. Now what does this sum total over a period of four years, or forty-eight months? It amounts to $2,400,000 a year, or a total of $9,600 000 for the four years. These figures you will admit, Mr. Speaker, are very conservative. I should not be surprised if the amount was much in excess of the figures I have given.
The answer of the Minister of Finance is very evasive. If the Dominion Government did not make a profit-and I wish to state that I did not make any accusation-did the British Government make a profit on the exchange, or did the Bank of Montreal make it? If so what steps have this Government taken to recover the profit? What steps are the Government going to take to recover	that	profit and re-imburse the	men	of	the Overseas
Forces? This Government made a bona fide contract with the men to pay them $1.10 per day in Canadian currency, which amount the men did not receive. The Government acted as trustee for the men of the Overseas Military Forces of Canada, and [DOT]they have betrayed that trust.
I said the answer of the Minister of Finance was evasive. It is true it is evasive in regard to the parties who benefited by the exchange, but it is not evasive or uncertain or doubtful as to one thing, that is, that the men through the carelessness or negligence or wilfulness of the Government have been done out of millions of dollars they were entitled to.
I must be thankful for the patience ol the House but I have just one more question to deal with, before I resume my seat. It is the constitutional question of the right of the representatives of the people in Parliament to get information from the Government regarding public affairs. This right is unquestionable. Nevertheless, Sir, it .has been denied by the Government to the members of the Opposition at this session. on several occasions. Let me refer to just a few instances which have come to my attention. My hon. friend the member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) on the 21st of March asked for the correspondence between the Government and Judge Robson regarding the resignation of the latter as chairman of the Board of Commerce. It seems to me the country is entitled to know whether or not Judge Robson resigned because the Government interfered in favour of its friends, in the administration of the board. Yet no return has been made, although on the 3rd of May the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that he would bring some of the documents down, but not all. None have been brought down yet. Another instance of the denial of our rights was exemplified when the Minister of Finance refused point blank to some hon. members on this side to answer something like seventy-four questions regarding the administration of railways. Sir, the people of Canada are en-

titled to know whether huge deficits, such as the deficit of $47,000,000 this year, are due to bad administration of the railways. Yet the Government refuses all information. Concerning the same question, I might add that non-compliance by the Government with an order of the House passed at my request last session in regard to the production of a list of shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway Company strengthens the belief of the people of Canada that we would find in this list proof of the speculative aspect of the deed. At the beginning of October I moved for the production of that list, and I insisted again on the last day of the session, that it should be brought down; and when the present .session opened I renewed my request, and it was promised me by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I believe. The first time the answer was promised me, the Minister of the Interior stood up and said that he would cable immediately and get the list. The Minister of the Interior is not a debutant in cablegrams, and I fail to see why this list is not forthcoming. The reason which the Government gives is that it would take too much time to prepare it. I asked for the list of the shareholders of the Grand Trunk Company on the 10th of October, and its preparation would not be the work of an expert. A typist could copy the list inside of five hours, but it has not been produced yet and I do not believe it will be produced this session. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I was right last session when I said, in connection with this matter, that there was a nigger in the woodpile. The Government, in this same spirit, without consulting Parliament decided to appoint an ambassador at Washington, a novel departure for Canada; and although we were promised last year by the President of the Privy Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell) in answer to a question by myself, that legislation would be brought down before anything was decided, and that the Prime Minister would lay the whole matter before the House on his return, we are confronted this year by an announcement that the matter has been decided by Order in Council; and apart from being told that the ambassador will be named, we are refused information in regard to the duties which he will discharge.
Sir, this is the way in which this autocratic Administration who have been sticking like leeches to the treasury benches have been conducting the affairs of the country. Not content with having been 
elected under false pretences and through racial prejudice; not content with having burdened the taxpayers of this country with a debt that is appalling; not content with having placed that burden on the shoulders of the common people, the middle and poorer classes; not content with having done all these things; they are refusing now to the representatives of the people in this House the unquestionable right of inquiring into the affairs of the Administration, the right which was won after a bitter fight by Baldwin and Lafontaine, the men who won responsible government. I therefore can conceive no better phrase, no fitter word, no more apt sentence to apply to the conduct of the Government than the old Latin proverb:	" Quos vult perdere Jupiter prius dememtat."


Mr. F. B. McCTJRDY (Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of debating tonight the relative desirability of raising the country's necessary revenues by direct taxes or through the incidence of a customs tariff. Canada's need to-day challenges every one of every party to unite their services in a long strong pull to repay the massive liabilities that were incurred during the years of military conflict. It is quite apparent that there is needed in Canada to-day a fuller understanding and appreciation by the public of the difficulties of the national financial position.
No man dealing with his own financial troubles or embarrassments would encounter difficulty in understanding his position because he would be confronted with figures and totals with which he had long been familiar. The totals that are involved in the nation's balance sheet, however, are so unprecedented in this country that they are apt to be confusing and perplexing, if only because of their size.
The annual review of Canada's financial position as detailed by the minister in his Budget Speech will afford students of such matters a stack of information on national finance. It is doubtless wise that the Budget Speech of the minister be given the widest possible publicity in its present form, so that the contents may reach the maximum number of students of such matters. But, Mr. Speaker, do you think that such a publication is best calculated to reach the eyes and claim the attention of the public whose co-operation is so needed at present? Every one knows the fate of lengthy parliamentary documents and blue books. Probably not one out of a hundred receives attentive perusal. Would it not be well that

the salient points be condensed into a statement written in popular language so clearly that he who runs may read, and in that form given out to the public? Such a statement should contain a clear and concise presentation of the national dilemma. It should indicate a distinct goal, say the extinguishment of the deadweight debt in the life of the present generation (a sinking fund of 3 per cent per year would accomplish that) and appeal for the co-operation of all in the efforts necessary to attain the indicated goal.
During the war Canada, as did other belligerents, exhibited a stamina and exerted a united effort that no one theretofore considered possible. This effort was rendered feasible because the whole population realized that the war was a life and death struggle and that the Allied Nations must either conquer or go under. So we saw an exhibition of team play on the part of all the people, spurred on to sacrifice to the uttermost in order that victory might be achieved.
The huge task encountered and successfully overcome in the war is a demonstration that present and future difficulties can by team work be met and surmounted. Great as are the impending problems they are not so difficult as those of the war period, which happily lie behind us. I am confident that, provided the same realization of present difficulties can be implanted in the public mind, we will be afforded the same co-operation in team play on the part of the public that was exhibited during the war. In the present struggle and in that which lies before us every one has his part to play. In the immediate future there is a call to public duty scarcely surpassed at any previous period in the country's history.
It has been my observation that at all times if the need can be placed before the public in a sufficiently lucid manner there will be no lack of response on the part of the people. I am sure I am not guilty of an overstatement when I say that the spontaneous response during the late war to appeals for recruits and money far exceeded the most sanguine expectations of even our most high-spirited and far-seeing public men.
Curiously enough, the country at large has been harbouring the delusion that the whole of Canada has enjoyed great national prosperity during the past six years. W-hat is the cause of this delusion? The proximate cause is that, measured in terms of money, prices of commodities have constantly risen until (according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics) it now
requires $216.38 to purchase at wholesale the goods that might have been bought in 1913 for $100. It necessarily follows that any person owning saleable goods worth $100 in money in 1913 could, if he held until to-day sell these goods for $216.38 in money. Such a man naturally feels that he is now more than twice as wealthy as he was then, whereas the fact of the matter is that on the average he is no better off at all because his $216.38 of to-day will not buy him any more of the things he needs than would his $100 of six years ago. The upward movement of prices and the illusion of prosperity that is induced is apt to continue until inflation is checked and deflation commences.
The Minister of Finance in his statement went into the reasons for to-day's high prices, recounting the well-known effect of the removal to fields of destruction of millions of former producers, to the interference of Governments, necessary during the war, with the normal course of supply and demand, the enormous dislocation of world industry in every direction, the destruction of wealth, and the inflation of credit and currency. All these causes have been influential in increasing prices; perhaps the last mentioned more than is generally appreciated.
What is the position of our currency today? On March 31, 1914, the total amount of bank notes in circulation in Canada issued by the
Dominion Government was	$122,612,175
Chartered Banks	 96,S-4'8,384

These notes circulated freely and were accepted by all Canadians and also by our foreign creditors at their face value for the reason that they were payable in practice in gold, the only medium recognized internationally as a standard of value. The Government and the banks -were in practice able to pay in gold because against their outstanding note issue they held 66.9 per cent in specie, leaving the amount of note issue not covered by specie, $72,636,280.
Under the Finance Act of August, 1914, an expedient designed to meet the emergency of war, gold payments in Canada were suspended. Under an Order in Council passed by virtue of powers created in the "War Measures Act, 1914," the export of gold from Canada was prohibited and the embargo thus created has never been lifted. In this regard Canada is not, however, peculiar amongst the late belligerent nations. All of them, with the exception of the United States, prohibit the exporta-

tion of gold. I am not in a position to asseTt that it would be wise to lift the embargo at once, although we must steadily set our faces towards the day when we will be again on a gold basis.. The fact remains, however, that Canadian debtors may not pay their foreign (and domestic) creditors in gold and the partial effect of that disability may be seen at any time in the rate of premium that we must pay to convert Canadian funds into New York exchange, the New York market being the nearest approximation that exists to a free gold one.
What changes in Canadian note issues have occurred since March 31, 1914? At that date, as I have said, our excess note issues over and above the amount of gold and specie held by the Treasury and the banks amounted to $72,636,280; in two years, viz., on March 31, 1916, it had grown to $98,893,206; in the next two years, viz., on March 31, 1918, it had leaped to $224,451,483; and at March 31, 1920, had further increased to $346,925,313.
So, it is clear that by the expedient of August, 1914, there has been manufactured in connection with our note issue an inflation of the difference between $72,636,280 and $346,925,313, or $274,289,033 payable on demand, but not payable in gold. The purchasing power of the country has been increased by this device, and unless the quantity of commodities available for purchase by this purchasing power has increased in the same ratio, why, you have created a buying force that was bound to inflate prices. And that is what has happened.
Now let us see how our gold reserves stand now. I have pointed out that on March 31, 1914, before the war the proportion of gold and specie held by the Treasury and the banks was 66.9 per cent of the outstanding notes. Reference to the Canada Gazette shows the note issues on
March 31, 1920	to total	$537,702,420
against which we have gold in the
hands of the Receiver General$100,286,281
Gold and specie in hands of banks	$ 79,990,826
In central gold reserve (presumably gold) $108,200,000. But the Gazette shows that of this reserve $97,700,000 is not gold at all but is the promise to pay of the Dominion Government leaving in gold only	$ 10,500,000

that a bold attempt was being made to consolidate .the national position by getting in a time of comparative prosperity the wherewithal to reduce the nightmare debt.
Canada's deadweight debt (Hansard, page 2556) amounts to $2,273,305,436.92. The national debt while it exists in such tremendous volume is bound to be a deterrent to immigration, industry and commerce. AH who appreciate Canada's present financial position will, undoubtedly, not only support the Government's decision to raise additional revenue by taxation, but they would, I am sure, 'be prepared to go even further fox they must realize that it is of the utmost importance that taxes be imposed at the present time of comparative prosperity when the pre-war dollar is only worth, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 46 cents rather than carry it along to a time when the dollar will resume its real value of one dollar.
I have full confidence that if the public is clearly informed of the difficulty and need of the moment they will conclude that such a course is wise and statesmanlike and will gladly co-operate. But it would not be reasonable to expect their co-operation without an understanding of the full need and of the goal to which the country should strive to attain.
Now, admitting that the situation was once clear in the minds of the public, to what distinct goal should the national policy in finance be directed? Should it not obviously be to the provision of a sinking fund which will retire the national debt in so far as it is a deadweight debt within a stated period? If we attempt as courageous a course as that attempted by Great Britain, viz., the extinguishment of our deadweight debt in 20 years we should need to provide for the payment annually of $68,000,000 towards diminution of debt. A settled policy in this regard would afford tax-payers a prospect of reaching the end of their heavy exactions within the lifetime of the present generation and give a buoyancy and hope to business that would otherwise be lacking.
There is no sovereign remedy for our existing ills. They are the natural and inevitable consequence of the war. So far as our industry is affected by conditions in other countries, it can wait until they commence to recover. That recovery depends partly on the wisdom of the governments concerned, but far more on the energy and initiative, hard work afd hard living of the people of each country. While, however, the troubles of other countries will

bring us troubles too, these can be enormously diminished or aggravated by our own aotion. The Government's duty is clear. It must continue its courageous attempt to bring its expenditure within the limits of its revenue, cease borrowing except for redemption of short dated loans, and stop inflating credit and currency. That course will, I admit, require great courage. All sorts of schemes which ought for other reasons to be carried out must be abandoned and one criterion alone established, viz., " Can we afford it "? not " Is it an attractive and desirable scheme "? A man would often like to spend much more than he does for the benefit of his family but if he is not rich enough he cannot. So with a nation. A large part of the population believes still that the war either did, or at least ought to, bring great improvements in conditions. They look for some new thing, for a new Canada, where every one will be financially better off than before and they regard, very naturally, drastic state action as the main means to achieving this end. The State is to spend vast sums on housing, reforestation, public works, buildings, canals and other laudable objects. It is to find the means by raising great sums from the rich voluntarily if possible, or if not by compulsion. It is to secure to itself the lion's share of all profits of business or industry, or if necessary to confiscate a good part of existing wealth. Such a programme is not feasible. If a capital levy is resorted to the proceeds must be devoted to reducing existing indebtness, not to meet further expenditure. It is true there is urgent need for large expenditures in many directions but there is no benefit Government expenditure can give that would be at all commensurate with the evil of further inflation and further rise in prices.
We wish to secure an appreciation by the public of the factors of the national dilemma and the full co-operation of all in the efforts necessary to reach the desired goal. How shall we set about it? You have a peculiar situation. In the first place Canada having from the loftiest motives hazarded everything in the great war emerges from that war with a national debt of $256 per head or $1,280 per family of five, rich and poor, in the land, and is materially much poorer than in 1914. The war time inflation, extension of credit, debasement of the currency, or whatever you choose to call it, resulting in any case in a delusion of increased wealth has increased the extravagance of the population. Production does not increase. People on small fixed

incomes are at their wits' end to make ends meet. A large section of the people, having during the war received larger wages with shorter working hours than ever before has decided to take life easy, with the result that production is being curtailed.
A clear statement exhibiting the country's present debt, estimates of annual unescapable expenditures and the necessary ways and means to meet them, would help to bring home to the people a realization of the comparative national impoverishment caused by the losses in the war, and the necessity of harder work and harder living by all to balance the national Budget.
The Government should at once undertake an extensive national campaign to urge upon the people in every rank of life the vital necessity of suppressing extravagance and reducing expenditures. The public must be informed fully and frankly of the state of the national finances in language and by means that are so plain that all can understand. During the war when recruits were needed, additional agricultural production desired and war loans had to be floated, campaigns of this character were willingly carried on by public co-operation and assistance. A similar bringing home of the post war necessities is absolutely necessary. But this campaign will not be successful until the Government in its own operation sets the example. Every member of Parliament who has been brought in contact with the conduct of public business knows that there are in the Civil Service many individuals of ideal capacity, hard working, conscientious and capable. But the. operation of the service as a whole will offend his business sense. He will detect laxity and inefficiency in many places. He will learn of Government offices and staffs that exist only because they had previously existed. It is, I am sure, within the knowledge of members, ministers, deputy ministers and heads of departments that theoretical safeguards and devices, honest without doubt in their conception, have resulted in a lowering of efficiency, multiplication of staff and red tape and, consequently, in a waste of public funds. Instead of confining its energies to insuring beyond peradventure a life tenure to the civil servant, the Government would be well advised to devote a part of its attention to the interest of the public that pays. I am convinced it were well that the Government secure from Parliament a power to be freely exercised to retire officials where services are no longer of value, or whose positions have become superfluous.
It is, I submit, a surprising condition that the public service, instead of reverting to normal now that the war pressure is well past, has actually increased its personnel during the year by over four thousand, indicating a prima facie waste in salaries alone of many millions, entirely apart from rentals of buildings to house superfluous staffs and provide them with stationery, sealing wax, and all the other paraphernalia that goes with official position. So long as the citizen knows that public appropriations are being spent without full value being given in return we cannot make an effective appeal to him for economy and co-operation in the national behalf.


Mr. R. H. HALBERT (Ontario North):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest, and, I must say, with some amusement, to many of the speeches that have been delivered upon the Budget. I shall not take uip any of the time of the House in extending my appreciation to the minister; I will simply ask him ito take mine as read. We have heard the lawyers, the doctors, the manufacturers, the ministers, and the politicians; they have all stated their views with regard to the Budget. With your permission, I would like to present the views of what are very often called the common people, especially the fawners. I believe that the views I .shall now express are those not only of a great many of the farmers, but also of a great many people of other callings in Ontario.
If cutting words, cross looks and scathing remarks could have killed this group on the cross benches, Mr. Speaker, we would have all been in the cemetery long ago. But you will see that even though there are no by-elections, we are still grow'-ing. I did not intend to take up the time of the House in replying to criticisms, but with your permission I feel it my bounden duty to reply to at least a few. I shall speak for only fifteen or twenty minutes, and I will make as good use of that time as I possibly can.
The member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt)-page 2940 of unrevised Hansard- said that this little group was dangerous. I would like know why? The farmers never went on strike. If we are dangerous, I wonder to whom? If he means that we are dangerous to -the Union Government, perhaps what he said was right. The hon. gentleman objects to the farmers organizing without first calling in the labour men, the clergymen and the manufacturers, and consulting with them. Well, I do not think

that when the Manufacturers' Association organized they sent for the farmers, or the clergymen either. I wondered when my hon. friend made that remark whether it was the One Big Union that he had in mind? Surely it was hot that. I wondered, too, if it was Union Government that he meant when he was referring to the formation of a union. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have had a sample of that; enough said.
My hon. friend also said that the fruit growers did not belong to the 'farmers' organization. Well, I can say this with authority, because I have been down through the fruit-growing section of Ontario; we have the farmers' clubs among the fruit growers and we also have a prominent fruit grower from St. Catherines as director of our organization. I 'admit that there are a few fruit growers left of the same stamp as the hon. member for Fraser valley (Mr. Stacey) who still want to charge the poor people ninety cents a barrel on their apples.
The member for Brantford also referred to us as free traders-page 2942 of unrevised Hansard. No man has ever heard me say that I am in favour of absolute free trade. He said that in our platform we mentioned free trade with Great Britain, and he as-[DOT] serted that if we had free trade with Great Britain we would have free trade with the world. Now, if the Americans along the border can ship their goods to Liverpool, as he said they could, bring them back and lay them down in southern Saskatchewan and compete so dangerously with .the Canadian manufacturers, then I say there is something absolutely wrong with the Canadian manufacturers; they should wake up and go to sleep right.
On page 2943 of unrevised Hansard the hon. member for Brantford found fault with the plank in our platform about raising revenue by a graduated inheritance tax on large estates of wealthy men. He objects to that; he says we are taxing the dead man's wealth. But the hon. member himself has always supported
11 p.m. a tax not on the wealth of the, rich man but on the widow of the poor man, a tax from which there is no escape; a tax upon his shroud, upon his coffin and upon the screw nails that fasten down his coffin lid. He is also willing to take from the widow of the poor man, if she has to earn her living by taking in washing, $13.05 by way of duty on her washing machine. If the widow happens to make her living by

sewing he is satisfied to take $14.43 on her sewing machine. He is very anxious indeed to look after the poor. But that is not all. At page 2939 of Unrevised Hansard the hon. member drew a very pathetic picture. He told us a very heartrending story about the Scotchman and the steers. There was a small bunch of steers on good pasturage inside a barbed wire fence, while outside there was a large bunch of steers on very poor pasturage, and he was very much afraid that the fence would be let down. Now let us put our gas masks on and examine this. As we approach we perceive that the scene changes. He told us that on the inside of the fence there were shorthorns and moolies and they were very fat. When we get up close we find that inside the fence among the clover are some great manufacturers with a barbed wire fence of protection all round them. They have good pasturage, while outside the fence are the por common people, and no doubt they are on poor pasturage. He almost trembled for fear some ruthless man will take a few strands off the top of the fence so the poor people might pick an odd bunch of clover over there inside the fence.
Now we come to the income tax. On page 2944 we find the hon. member very wrathy, and he said "it was unfair and an unwarranted islander " because he had heard or read somewhere that some person had insinuated that there were defaulters in the payment of income tax in the Tory city of Toronto. He was very wrathy about that, and said that there were only 314 farmers who paid1 income tax. He insinuated that the farmers were shirking payment of their taxes. Mr. Speaker, there is no man on the face of the earth who would be more glad to pay an income tax if he had an income of $5,000 or $10,000 than the farmer. Give him the income and he will pay the tax. If the farmers have not paid the tax it is because they have not the income. The hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Casselman)- page 2967 of Unrevised Hansard-said that he would welcome a return to private life. Well, Sir, just as soon as his Government gets ready to go to the country, he may get his wishes gratified. The hon. member at page 2970 - this is a personal matter and I do not like to refer to it-and the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) said that the day the Farmers' party came into existence was when the hon. member for North Ontario- myself-led his little band up the hill and led them down again here in Ottawa. Mr Speaker, I did not come here to protest

against my son being conscripted. I was not fortunate enough to have a boy. My boys happen to be all girls. I had not a relative to conscript either. All my relatives that could go had gone voluntarily before conscription was introduced, so I had no one to. plead for in that respect. What brought me here was this. It was after I came here that I was elected chairman of the delegation, and I may say that not one out of ten of the men who came here belong to the United Farmers of Ontario. At the request of Premier Hurst of Ontario I had given my services gratis since the war began-my railway fare and expenses were paid, that was all-to the Organization of Resources Committee which sat in the city of Toronto. I also was asked to serve gratis, of course, on the Victory Loan Committee, with headquarters at Toronto. I had been closeted in the Parliament Buildings with a representative of the Canadian Food Board and of the American Food Board, and we had been told the food situation in terms that we were pledged not to divulge outside of the walls of the building. If you had a boy sick and got him the best doctors and the best nursing, but he happened to die after all, you would have a clear conscience because you had done your duty. I considered that it was my duty, and nothing has happened since to make me change my mind, to lay the situation as I saw it before Sir Robert Borden and his Cabinet. We did so, and the farmers behaved like gentlemen while they were here. I want to say further that the great majority of those who came here with that delegation did not need to take a back seat to any member of the Government as to knowledge of the conditions in the back concessions of this province, because they came from there and lived among those conditions.
The hon. member for Dundas also made a remark which I cannot let pass unchallenged. At page 2971 of Unrevised Hansard he said that every member who sits in this little group had been a supporter of the Liberal party from 1896 to 1911. I want to contradict that statement most emphatically, for I, for one, did not support the Liberal Government, I did not support it in 1911. I was brought up a 'Conservative of the hottest kind; but a wise man changes his mind, a fool never. I have changed my mind. I was raised on the farm arid have lived on the farm, and those of you who have lived on the farm know this: If you take a calf, when quite young, from its mother it does not make much
noise, but let it run with its mother for some time and then take it away, and both calf and mother raise an awful row. It looks to me as if the manufacturers of this country had been helped so long and are so needed by the Government at election time, that both manufacturers and Government raise a terrible howl if you talk of letting down the tariff.
I shall not take up the time of the House to deal with any more of the questions raised in this debate, because I think a lot of time has been wasted already. The farmers are abused, but the fact remains that they are employed in the most important industry in the world. The farmers of this Dominion have as much at stake as any one else, the farmers and their wives are just as good citizens, just as patriotic and as loyal Canadians as are to be found in any other calling. The farmers are just as honest in their convictions, just as anxious and just as willing to do their full share in the re-establishment of this country and in paying the debt as are the people of any other calling. Some hon. members have displayed great anxiety for fear the common people might get hold of the helm of the ship of state. This thought seems to give them the nightmare, and they see all kinds of things happening. But there is one thing sure, Sir, these people would not make any worse mese of it than some others have done. I admit, iSir, that the farmers in the past have paid very little attention to national affairs. They left that to the politicians. But no result of the war argues as certainly for a bigger, better and stronger Canada than the demand of the agriculturist and labouring people for a place and a say in the guiding of the affairs of the nation. No longer will the farmer feed the world and produce the great bulk of the revenue, and have no voice in the conduct of its affairs. Representatives of the financial and protected interests would be well advised to take notice of this fact or like the Shuna-mite women of old they will go back to where they came from and among their own -eople. Any one who can still conscientiously advocate the old tariff policy should be given the Iron Cross, or perhaps it would be better to give him the Humane Society medal. The farmers and the farmers' organizations have during this session received considerable criticism and abuse. I prefer, Mr. 'Speaker, not to take up the time of the House replying to any more of those misrepresentations; I just consider where they came from and let them pass at that.

The farmers' movement constitutes the first real challenge to the party system, which has been in operation for over forty years, and that is why some hon. members are so uneasy. Having developed from adverse economic conditions that movt-ment lays the emphasis on economic questions. Born in an age of democratic desire it is filled with the democratic spirit. The privilege holders of Canada to-day are maintaining a rigid vigilance to keep Canadian workers on the farm and in industries in economic enslavement by means of the protection tariff, although it is mostly done in ambush. It is very necessary, Mr. Speaker, at this critical period in our history, when there is so much unrest, when the whole civilized world is in a state of turmoil, when we as: a young nation have tremendous issues to face and surmount, and surmount them we must if the ship [DOT]of state is to be steered clear of the rocks and shoals that may be in its course. And in my judgment it is necessary for every citizen of this country, no matter what his colour, race or creed may be, and especially every representative of the people, to apply all his ability and energy, not to abusing one another, as I have witnessed here, but to the solutions of the problems with which this country is faced, in a manner that will bring the greatest benefit to Canada and the Canadian people as a whole. It is the duty of the Government to see to it that no obstacles are put in the way, that no artificial burdens put upon the back of the wealth-producing people of this country. The agriculturists ox Canada not only supply the food for the people of Canada, but they also will have to very materially assist the Finance Minister in furnishing the wherewithal to finance the re-establishing of the returned soldier, the paying of the pensions, the care of the widows and orphans, and caring for the crippled and the maimed. Agriculture is the basic industry upon which the success of all other industries primarily depends. The agriculturists supply the food that stiffens the muscles, that stimulates the heart, that feeds the blood, that quickens the pulse, that nourishes the brains of the nation. Therefore, they are not going to be a football in the future as they have in the past, to be kicked, exploited and taxed by every little manufacturing concern that wants to start up. They have been the hewers of wood and drawers of water from time immemorial. For years, Mr. Speaker, the common people have been the human oxen, they have bowed their 
necks to the yoke, they have been driven in the furrow, they have borne the burden of the race, they have rooted in the rubbish barrels at the back doors of the legislative halls of this fair Dominion of ours and they have had to be satisfied with the dry crusts and the bare bones carelessly thrown away by the other fellows. But, Mr. Speaker, the day is not far distant when they will come in at the front door and demand their rights as those engaged in the basic industry of the Empire. It is our duty, Mr. Speaker, if we want to keep the producers on the land and encourage others to go on the land, to see to it that they are not penalized by a protective tariff for the benefit of a privileged class; that they get their implements of production and the clothes that they wear without being taxed anywhere from 12J to 310 per cent to help the lords of finance and the idle rich.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government will be well advised to consider these matters, for no nation can succeed indefinitely without a vigorous, prosperous and contented population identified with rural life. The rural home has been the source from which has come the main supply of strong manhood and womanhood to our seats of learning, afterward to fill important positions of trust and leadership in the councils of our nation. In all that makes for national stability, intellectual power and social and moral uplift, the home in the country stands pre-eminent; within it the very soul of Canada may be said to be contained. In view, then, of the great importance of rural population in the building of a nation, it is the duty of every loyal' citizen of Canada, and, of the Government of Canada, to see to it that the tariff-fed plutocrat and profiteer is taken off his back, the shackles off his feet, the handcuffs off his hands, and the padlock that has been upon his mouth for years unlocked and the-key thrown away. Mr. Speaker, the economic issues of Canada are very vital and must be kept steadily to the front. The issue to-day is whether Canada is to have its destinies controlled forever by a greedy plutocracy, or whether it is to be allowed to develop a real economic democracy without which political democracy is farcical. There must be a change, or our civilization will be hopelessly brutalized. It behooves Canada, which was foremost in the fight against Prussianism, not to be behind in the struggle for a new social order. It looks to me that a change can never come from this Government. The country does not hope for anything

from this Government because figs do not grow on thistles, nor are silk purses made out of sow's ears. There may be setbacks in the struggle before Canadian democracy, but the result is none the less sure. The day is not far distant when we shall see embodied in active legislation the ideals and aspirations of the plain folk of Canada. Though the ship may sway with the tide, while the anchor holds firm we are safe. Democracy in every Anglo-Saxon country will rise and make an end of this existing tariff system which makes exploitation possible. I see by the Press, and the fact was mentioned by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. J. F. Reid), that the manufacturers, the high protectionists, were creating a press censorship by way of boycott of papers that advocate or favour lower tariff. Which goes to show how anxious they are that the public should not be informed on the workings of the tariff, and also how insidious the action of coloured or suppressed news has been upon the formation of public opinion. The public, in whose hands lies the ultimate power in a democracy, cannot form a proper opinion upon domestic or international questions if their sources of information are systematically poisoned to suit the interests of some particular political or economic propaganda.
Our present economic system is based upon the incentive of profits, but we must be prepared to let it function naturally and not foster it artificially by a protective tariff. It may take a certain amount of courage on the part of the Government to affront the pillars of society, the financial and manufacturing barons, whose word seems to be law in certain matters, but Canadians must be prepared, Mr. Speaker, to face and deal with these matters if they hope to become worthy citizens of a free country. It is often only a step from the sublime to the ridiculous, so sometimes it is not far from a form of patriotism to treason. It is not necessary that Canada should have great factories established artificially, but it is necessary that there should be a chance for a good comfortable living for everybody who is willing to work. Let us devote our efforts to what we can do 'best, with our immense resources and then exchange freely with other lands. This is the method which will mean the greatest profit to us. However fertile the soil of a country may be, and however frugal and industrious its people, it will remain poor and backward and the people will be lacking in the highest comforts of life if its trade laws and its fiscal policy are unsound. It is common belief that the protective tariff
has fostered combines, trusts and "gentlemen s agreements" in almost every line of Canadian industrial enterprise, by means of which the people of Canada both urban and rural have been shamefully exploited through the elimination of competition, the ruination of many of our smaller industries, thereby giving to manufacturers the power to make Canadians buy made-in-Canada. goods at made-in-Canada prices and pay penalty duties at rates dictated by those manufacturers, thereby taking from the pockets of every consumer a sum to be put, not in the public treasury, but in the pockets of the Canadian manufacturers. The result is that on the back of the Canadian commonwealth there rides an association of protected interests making the country contribute to their gains. The Government has no right to take, or allow any one else to. take, from the earnings of any one anything except what is absolutely needed to. carry on the business of the Government. The moment one cent is taken and that one cent does not go into the treasury, that is robbery. There was a time perhaps when the industries in this country were in their infancy, when tariff for protection was necessary; but when husky infants like the Dominion Textile Company can make 310 per cent profit, a protection does not seem to me to be necessary. The horn and hoof of the protected interests have been long enough upon the doorstep of Canadian homes and also of Canada's House of Government. The fight for freedom from its vulgar and oppressive domination has only begun in earnest and it will never let up until the common people, the wealth-producing people of Canada, are liberated from the thraldom of financial barons who own this country financially and control it politically, until we have equal rights to all and special privileges to none. To reduce the high cost of living it is necessary to lessen the cost of production and lessen the cost of distribution. The world is hungry and the indications are that it will be more hungry unless conditions are radically changed. In this naturally great agricultural country, Canada's food production is hampered by unjust fiscal laws, excessive distribution tolls, and the lure of short hours and high wages in the cities. The decrease in farm population which, according to the Bureau of Municipal Affairs of Ontario, averages about 16,000 annually, should give rise to thought and consideration on the part of the Government. We have been told that the tariff is for revenue; if so, why is the manufacturer refunded in drawbacks 99 per cent of

the duty on their raw material which they charge up in this machinery when sold to the farmers?
It may be interesting if I should just quote for the information of the House a
International Harvester Co	
Massey Harris Co	
Frost & Wood Co	
Cockshutt Plow Co	
Ford Motor Co	[DOT] [DOT]	
Quaker Oats Co	
I cannot imagine, if the tariff is for revenue, why these Christmas boxes should go back to the manufacturers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time that th manufacturer was taken off the back of the producer and consumer and stood upon his own feet, which in my judgment, is absolutely necessary in this reconstruction period.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the final chapter. If, after carrying all this load through the years of farm life, the farmer who has gone bankrupt in the process, falls by the wayside when he hovers in the shadow of the Great Divide beyond which I trust there is no tariff tax before he can enter Heaven, I find that when he turns his mind to the purchase of the lumber with which to build the pine box in which his remains will be enclosed, his last days on earth are disturbed by the nightmare that before he is buried the few mourners must take up a collection in order to pay a tariff tax to the millionaire lumbermen like my hon. friend from East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). The transactions of some of those Arms with the people are now being investigated iby a Farmer Government at Toronto, while his erstwhile honoured political provincial leader is said to have gone south for the benefit of his health. But, even after the tax is paid on the pine box, the grave is still to be dug, and before the aged sexton in the old churchyard on the concession line is permitted to delve into the last six feet of earth, the hereafter dream of the broken, unhonoured agriculturist is made hideous by the thought that there must be paid on the shovel which digs the grave a tariff tax in the interest of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) who, while so patriotic as to advise this House and us farmers to stand fast and protect everything Canadian, thinks so little of his own patriotic doctrine that he has told us he actually ships his hardware products away down to Mexico, up the American coast, 
few items with regard to the drawback paid to the manufacturers.
I find that the following amounts were paid to Canadian manufacturers on account of drawback:
1915.	1916.	1917.$101,613	12	$ 64,279,256	40	32,31,065 27	. .14,442	34	6,389,435	07	127,74,034	05	264,000	00	$ 29,006	00000	06	97,000	00323	4>6	10,163	84000	00	71,000	00000	00	231,000	00
and into the Canadian city of Victoria, B.C., right at the door of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) rather than pay an extra ten cents per hundred to that great, patriotic, loyal Canadian institution, the Canadian Pacific Railway. I may be disloyal when I buy a shovel from an American. I may go down to the last resting place of an unhonoured disloyalist when I want to patronize an American factory because I can save money, but the ultra-loyalist manufacturing member from Lincoln can hand his money over to the United States railways and ships at the beginning, contribute something to the Mexican Greasers who load and unload his goods, put these same goods aboard a United States freighter and 'take them up the American Pacific coast to a Canadian city, and when he tells this House about having been able to beat a great, loyal, patriotic Canadian railway corporation out of 10 cents his brother loyalists in the House applaud his statements. Weighing all these facts, looking them straight in the face, Mr. Speaker, I am constrained to ask if the time will not soon arrive when some modest capitalist or manufacturer or lumberman who supports this Budget and this tariff system will arise in his place in this House and ask that he be given some kind of a privilege that will enable him to charge some kind of a tax for the last prayers said over the grave of the farmer, some tariff tax before he can get into Heaven, and, if not bound in that direction himself, then some kind of a privilege from this Government that will give the modest gentleman some kind of a "corner" among his old high tariff supporters.


Mr. A. M. DECHENE (Montmagny):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, and to address the House in a language with which I am not as familiar as most of the members, I feel at a loss. I may not render full justice to this subject of national importance. I will endeavour

to present my remarks to the best of my ability being sure that in your fairness you will not find fault with my many mistakes.
The present Budget debate has given us the pleasure of hearing many good speeches, and the occasion of studying the Government's policies. We know now what the gentlemen sitting on the treasury benches have in their minds: to help the Canadian people carry the burdens of war and return to peace activities. For these purposes they preach economy and increased production on the people's side, while they attend to their part of the scheme by taxing the,same people and spending lavishly the money they can get hold of. By the proper operation of this scheme the Government's friends will get richer, and the people at large poorer. In their minds, that being so, everybody should be happy. "Quand le roi s'amuse, .... la France est heur-euse	"
I believe that the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) has had very little trouble in applying the Tory system of taxation; he has well succeeded with the help of his colleagues. These taxes will be heavy on the whole of the people, the consumers, while the rich men, his friends the millionaires, the backers of the present administration, will go unharmed. These gentlemen will help to carry on. They will do the book-keeping for the Government, while the people will do the paying. Being Tories, we all know that they excel in the taxing business, and that they always fail, in so doing, to impose taxation with justice and equity. On one hand, the Minister of Finance expresses his deep de-sii're to do his best to promote harmony, unity and welfare, in Canada.; on the other hand, with his 'Colleagues, he is doing his best to perpetuate unrest, hate, and class movement among our people. His last taxes are only the latest acts in that directi on. They are so unjust, and iso tyrannical that we cannot condemn them too strongly. What pleasure it will be for me to vote against them with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), and the rest of the gentlemen on this side of the House, and assert once more the true principles off pure Liberalism, and the Government of Canada for all Canadians and by all Canadians!
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us, for one moment, study another point of Our national problem, and see what can he done in the interest of the majority of our people. The friends of all the industries o'f this country have voiced -their sentiments and put toe-187
fore the Government wlhat they thought best in the interest of their people. We have heard the manufacturers' viewpoint on our fiscal policies. We .all know that they want protection for the $2,786,649,727 -as per statistics of 1917-invested in their industries. Their shops during the same year put on the market $3,015,577,940 worth, of products for which they want a higher tariff and still more protection, and yet there were only 692,067 men working for the benefit of this huge amount of capital. Hardly one-tenth of Ithe population is making a living out of this peculiar branch of our national life. The industries in which the manufacturers are engaged certainly deserve -a good deal of attention on our part. Those manufacturers help in building up this country and in making our possibilities known the world over. We must not overlook the fact tShiat in 1919 they exported $549,284,268 worth of their products, or about one-filth of their total production. What is left from that exportation is for home consumption. But even with this magnificent statement from ithe manufacturers' side, we must not take Jar granted that they stand ifinst in Canada as a class. They are only second; second as to capital invested hr the business; second as to the number of people employed; second in importance. They stand first only with respect to the value of exports, and then only by a small margin over the farmers of Canada as a whole wiho really constitute the first class. Mr. Speaker, I have just stated that the farming community was the first in this country. I must add that to the farmer we must give the largest part of our attention. In 1919, according 'to the best available sources o'f information, there were in Canada 51,427,190 acres of land under field crops, wtoieh, valued at $50 an acre-taking the- value given by the Minister of the Inferior-represents a total value for land alone of $2,571,359,500. The value of stock was, in 1917, $1,102,261,000, making a grand total of $3,673,620,500, exclusive of farming implements and capital invested in the farming industry. The total value in 1919, of Canadian farm products, was $1,975,841,000, of which $467,625,311 were exported.
We must also bear in mind the number of people interested in agriculture. According to the best authorities, five-eighths of the total population of this country is rural, that is pretty nearly four millions of people. There is a great difference between the capital 'invested in farming and the value of farm products, compared with the in-



dustrial capital and its output. That is accounted for by the fact that the farm products sell at a lower price per article. We must also bear in mind that the capital invested in farms brings a less return. The average farm in the East does not pay 6 per cent on the investment.
We have heard of the western farmers -also, through their most prominent leaders. We know tiheir aims and what they are after. Their motto may be expressed in a few (words: More railroad facilities; more elevators at home, at the head of the Great Lakes and at the shipping ports; free agricultural implements; and most of ithe expenses to be borne by the country at large. What o'f the eastern farmer and his needs, and relation to Ms western brother? First of all, he will be the one to pay the major portion of the heavy expenditures, of the millions in fact, needed for the West, while the western farmer will not put up a cent to help the eastern farmer. The two are as far apart in their interests as they are in the land. The western stockmen and farmers enjoy the full benefit of the Government grant and the money voted to buy ' seed grain's, feed and stock. They enjoy the full working of 'the car lot policy and of its supplement, the free freight policy. The eastern farmer does not get money to buy his seed or feed. He benefits very little from the car lot policy, which is not applied to its full extent in the East. What the eastern farmer needs is encouragement in improved methods of production; real, practical teaching in agriculture and its by-products-(butter, cheese, live stock, eitc. I do not think I am misstating the facts when I say that the interests of the western farmer and those of the eastern farmer are far apart, and cannot be merged together with success to them and to the country.
Will the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) permit me to make one suggestion on the farming problem of the East, and how he can help to make farming pay? And here let me say that I am sorry the minister is not present-in fact there are few members olf the Government in their seats at the present time.
The last years of strenuous work in the different classes of our people have changed many recognized standard ideas. Many new methods of production have been found and put into practice. Many new necessities have come to life and must he satisfied. To meet this situation the Government must change its old policies and put forward improved ways and means of in-

creasing production and wealth in the various fields of human activity.
Among the different kinds of production, the art of producing food, that is to say, agriculture, stands first, and, as already stated, it is the main principle of prosperity in a country as big as ours. The farmer, either active in his fields or retired in hie native village, is the best customer of our industrial world; in fact, he buys more than half of the total output of our manufactures. That, of itself, should be enough to draw attention to his activities. But he is more than that to the country; he is the feeder of its people, he is the framework of any national prosperity. Gut the farmer out and what will be left in (Canada will not be worth while to look at. The actual situation of reconstruction depends a good deal on him. To reduce the high cost oi living, everybody is looking to the farmer. If we want to help, let the Government do its share and devise new means of promoting greater production on the farm.
New ideas have appeared even in the agrarian world, and the experimental farm as the practical factor of assistance to the agriculturist is giving way to new methods. I regret to differ from my hon. friend, the (Hon. Minister of Agriculture as to the best methods of encouraging agriculture, but our differences are very slight, our aims being the same: Progress. The hon. gentleman and this Government favour few big farms; I favour many small ones. He has many good reasons to support his eontention. I believe with him that the experimental farms are a. necessity, il also believe that the present and near future is actually well provided for.
Out of the $3,903,000 voted for the Department of Agriculture $1,200,000 goes for experimental farms; $520,000 for administration of the Meat and Canned Food Acts; $1,400,000 for the Live Stock Branch and indirectly for the Meat Packers' Trust. Very little is left for real agricultural purposes.
Mr. Speaker, the work of the experimental farm to he of any use to the farming community must he known by that community. The farmer must have belief that he can get on his land the results obtained on these farms. Everybody knows that such is not the case. The reason for this situation lies in the fact that the farmer knows that these farms are costing lots of money for their upkeep, and that he cannot spend big money on his farm to achieve the same results. So he is little interested in those farms. He may he wrong, hut it is the fact.

Some may say that he should go to those farms and see for himself the work done there. That is partly true. We must not, on the other hand, forget that at the time when it is worth while to visit these farms the farmer has more to do on his own farm than he can properly attend to. Under these conditions, are we obtaining the results we are aiming at? Are we getting the full benefit of our experience? We are surely getting some benefit, but it is coming in slowly. We are too much in a hurry to wait for slow results. Let us change our methods and try to get immediate results. If the farmer will not come to the experimental farm, let us go to him with it. Go to the farmer's field and demonstrate there, by actual practice, what has been found profitable on the central farms. For this purpose, the Government should multiply its illustration farms, or, to achieve still better results, transfer its activities in that field to the provincial government, and help them financially to carry on this work. These special farms have found favour with some provincial governments, and their number is increasing every year. This increase is due to many causes, one of the first, o'f which is organization. We have 256 demonstration farms in Quebec, the details of which are as follows: 37 fruit (trees); 65 small fruits; 3 kitchen gardening (not including school plots); 42 sugar beets; 45 pototato fields; 64 experimental stations for rotation crops, wheat, oats, corn, barley, clover. The local Government pays the cost of these with successful results. They have passed the stage of mere experiment; they have come to stay. Their value to the farmers has been demonstrated, the improvement they have effected in the agricultural field is making them more necessary every year. Their results are immediate and lasting. That is what we are looking after,-results, more results, and immediate results.
I claim results, but you may think, Mr. Speaker, that II have brought little proofs to support my statement. The value of crops and stock value is the most significant and conclusive proof that can be presented to the house. First, the area under cultivation in the province of Quebec in 1914 was 4,863,850 acres. In 1918 it was up to 13.292,798 acres, an increase of 8,428,948 acres.
The value of the crop in 1914 was $98,779.600; in 1918 it was up to $271,750,900; in 1919, $307,994,280. It has practically increased threefold. The value of stock on the farm increased from $122,208,000 in 1914 187J
to $252,445,000 in 1918. These results surely are due to the system of helping agriculture and the methods behind them.
'There is also a better reason for this pre-eminent position of the province of Quebec in agriculture. That is Liberalism. While Quebec was under the Tory rule, it was making slow progress. Ontario had then a Liberal regime and was progressing very fast. A change came. Quebec went Liberal and is fast gaining ground, untario made slow progress during these late years of her Toryism.
The Tories have made the millionaires richer. Liberalism made the farmers well-off. Let us see what Ontario was doing during the same years. The value of crops which in 1914 was $168,455,253 has since increased to $384,013,000, a little more than double. Is it surprising, in view of these facts, to see the farmers of the province take their interests in their own hands and go into politics? These facts are really more th$n was necessary to support my statement that proper methods of agriculture will bring astonishing results.
These illustration farms in Quebec usually consist of a small plot of land, just a few acres, cultivated according to new methods under the special supervision of a rural demonstrator, a Government official. The farmers see one of their neighbours cultivating four or five acres of his land with some kind of crop. They know him; they see the work he does on these acres; they know how much the work costs. They discuss with him the whole of the experiment and are still there when the crop is gathered and results known. They then feel that what their neighbour has done they all can do. They are convinced, and are ready to follow this lead. That brings results. The experimental farms, I am sorry to say, cannot boast of such immediate progress. To help the farmers carry on experiments on their own lands, and to help those in charge of the Provincial Government's illustration farms, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. J. E. Caron, has retained the services of special agricultural experts or demonstrators, most of them are young men. They are obliged to reside in rural districts; they visit the farmer in his fields; help him with advice and show him how to get results. They are the farmer's friends. I recently read in an agricultural magazine of this province a quotation from Hoard's Dairyman, published in the United States, saying that the county agent, who corresponds to our district agronomist, is gradually becoming the

hub of the agricultural wheel around which are grouped all the individual or collective activities of the county. He is as much an adviser as a man at everybody's disposal. He is becoming more and more the farmers' business agent and friend.
The author of the above mentioned article added:
The same might be said of our district agronomists. They strive to help each farmer with the means at their disposal; what they want is to make farming more remunerative and the farmer better liked and esteemed. Farmers who despised their agronomist despised their best friend, their most desinterested adviser and one of the most powerful factors for insuring the progress of a region. In ten years from now we will be able to recognize at once the regions under the happy influence of a good agronomist. They who still resist the agronomist's influence are the inveterate partisans of old routine or the great meddlers in people's affairs who find themselves hampered in their interested calculations, by a man of progress, a champion of the farmer's rights.
It is important to mention especially the proof of t'he appreciation of the. district agronomists' work given by the counties which have an agricultural information bureau. This appreciation was manifested in the shape of bonuses varying from $200 to $600 voted the agronomists by the county councils. In the month of July, 1918, eighteen counties having the services of an agronomist had already voted bonuses. Since then, seventeen of the counties have done the same. One county only is needed to complete the list, but we hope it will not delay in .following the example of others. Time and again these experts call the farmers of a particular locality into one field and give them practical demonstrations of what the new methods will do. Perhaps the House will permit a personal reference to illustrate my point. In one locality of my riding the rural demonstrator called a meeting of farmers in a potato field. That season there was much disease in those potato fields and the crop was endangered. The demonstrator had to fight the plague and show the farmers how to fight it. With their help he treated one field and -a few days later he called the same farmers to the same spot ito see the results of his teaching and compare the conditions with those in the neighbouring field. The results were immediate; every farmer started to work on his own land, using the new methods, and the crop was saved. That, is practical teaching. That is immediate results. The illustration plot o!f land, coupled with the district rural demonstrator-that is the new idea in farm experiments; that is the new method. This new idea, these

new methods, have superseded with the people the experimental farms. The cost to the local government of those illustration farms is very small; it averages around $200 in Ottawa, and a good deal * less in our province. In Quebec the 64 illustration farms, on which wheat, oats, corn, barley, clover, were raised, cost to the province an average of $35 a piece. The 102 devoted to fruit trees and small fruit growing received no grant of money. Our financial contributions are limited to the purchase of seeds, plant sprayers, chemical fertilizers and farming implements. We also supplied seeds and fertilizer for quarter-acre fields for the 42 sugar beet demonstration plots. The same methods are applied to the 45 potato plots. This demonstrates very clearly that these illustration fields are not expensive when the proper organization is behind them. If the number of these farms was increased in a large measure ; if we had thousands of them under the federal control instead of forty-two, the results would be wonderful and the country would reap big profits from these expenditures. The unrest among the farmers would soon disappear when these gentlemen would see that their interests were being well taken care of. They would he more interested in their work, and their sons would not be so anxious to leave for the industrial town1. I would recommend that a few farmers in each municipality be given the advantage of such illustration farms. Do not take the whole of a farm, hut only a few acres, on as many farms as possible. The farmer in charge of a small plot of this kind is bound to follow the move on the whole of his land. He will toe obliged in order to avoid the criticism of his neighbours, to cultivate his farm up to the new standard and use the new and more modern methods. That is our experience in Quebec, and is, I am sure, the same in all other provinces, for the farmer is everywhere the same, a man of sound judgment. The report of the hon. Minister of Agriculture bears testimony to this. It says on page 62:
During the past season, it was quite noticeable that crops grown on the illustration stations, and for several miles round, gave higher yields than those grown on farms more distant.
The Government ishould take notice of this new formula in agricultural improvement and do its utmost to get all over Canada the same results, and get at least some returns for the money spent. The Government should get in touch with the provincial Departments of Agriculture and co-operate with them in carrying out the

best means of promoting the system oi directly illustrating to the farmer what can be done. This principle has been accepted for cow testing with good results. "Why not in illustration stations? During the third week of March many, of the Provincial Deputy Ministers of Agriculture were in Ottawa; if I am well informed, these gentlemen have taken up this question of cooperation between their Departments and the Federal Government. They have specially advocated that the work on these illustration farms be left in their hands, the Central Government making special grants to help pay the expenses. This was not agreed to by Ottawa,-why, I do not know. If I am permitted I may guess the reason. "No money to help the farmer; what we have we hold, for the big interests." What these gentlemen from the provinces are after is not simply dollars and cents; they are after results; they want unity of operation in their respective provinces to get efficiency; They have the staff to carry on the work. They can do it much cheaper than this Government. The duplicating of salaries, travelling expenses, and overhead charges would be done away with. That will leave more money to promote the real interests of agriculture. I will with pleasure ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture to give the best of his time to the study of new ideas and new methods in the farming business. I feel sure that as a farmer himself he will understand the strength of my plea, and give it his whole support.
"We are increasing subsidies in many branches of this Administration by the millions, while we are hardly spending three millions of dollars for agriculture and the betterment of the farming community. I hope the minister when he brings down his Supplementary Estimates will have another million for agricultural purposes to be spent along the lines of the new idea and more modem methods of farming. Let him take his money from the ruinous Department of Militia, the Mercantile Marine, and the other war marine projects under consideration. Cut down the expenses there and give the savings thus made to his countrymen at large.
I have mentioned the farmer's son and his willingness to stay on the farm. It is easier to keep him there than to take him back to the farm. Prove to him that he can make a clean living there, that there is money in the farming business, and you will have good results. Seeing his father a leader in this line of social activity will stimulate the son's desire to follow in his
steps and make good. Let us not forget this aspect of a big problem. This young man has also felt the changing state of mind of the world. He has also learned many things and is full of energy to carry on his aspirations. He wants to learn more, and is looking for better and quicker results. Let us use his good will and give him the best chances of getting educated in things pertaining to the farm business. We need leaders in that field. Our schools of agriculture could make those leaders if they had the proper support and were not so few and so far apart. The farmers' sons of to-day will be the farmers of to-morrow. If they are made progressive, the next generation of farmers will be a blessing to this country.
The well-being of the farmer, his progress and enrichment is the safest asset of this country. In time of stress the farmer stays on his land and works. He does not invest his savings in American funds like the millionaires do. His money works on the farm, in this- country of curs, for the benefit of all. Everywhere the farmers have done more for their country than the millionaires during the war. They are still there to play the highest part in reconstruction work. If the farmer is rich, the country is rich. Millionaires don't make a country rich; they live on a rich country.
So my last word will be; Get behind the new idea and the more modem methods of increasing farm production; make the farmer well off, and the country at large will be prosperous.


Mr. S. F. GLASS:: As the hour is late, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. ROBB:: This motion is not debatable, but I wish to say that we shall not be able to arrive at a vote to-morrow night unless the debate is proceeded with now.


Avard Longley Davidson: The Whip for
the Progressive party arranged with me that the adjournment should be moved for the leader of the Opposition.


Georges Henri Boivin: Under the
circumstances, I take it, the hon. member desires to withdraw his motion. He will thus reserve his right to continue his speech. If the motion is put to the House and negatived, the hon. member will be debarred from taking any further part in this debate.
Motion withdrawn.


Oliver Robert Gould: Mr. Speaker, as I rise in my place

to address the House I am reminded that I have waited not impatiently, nor with great expectation, for some 46 years to have the *opportunity of expressing .my views in the House of Commons upon matters pertaining to the welfare of Canada.
I would approach the hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) and speak to him a few words partly in approbation, because I have tried to realize the great task that confronts him as Minister of Finance, inasmuch as it seems to me that the heritage handed to him and the task before him is greater than that assigned to any other Finance Minister in the whole history of Canada. It seems to me that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was absolutely correct when he stated that the ex-Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) and his Government did not have a task, for the road was then a highway of enthusiasm. The people knew of the task in hand, that of winning the war, and anything, reasonable or unreasonable, that was asked of them at that time was forthcoming. All the people demanded was that the funds they so lavishly provided for the Government should be used with judgment and discretion, and the day has long since dawned when the people believe, as I believe, that the funds so lavishly given to the Government have not been disposed of in a fair or equitable manner. It further seems to me, Sir, that the ex-Minister of Finance, knowing of that enthusiasm, should not have taken the attitude that he did in the flotation of the war bonds when he advertised them to the people of Canada tax free. That, Sir, in my humble opinion, may be interpreted as either a bribe to the people or permission to the millionaire and the wealthy man to hide much of their wealth away from taxation, which wealth, he knew, must be increased materially as a result of our war efforts, and I am here to say, particularly for the West, that during that whole period, during the flotation of those bonds many of the people of the West used their credits at the banks to provide the necessary $50 or $100 to purchase a bond, thereby demonstrating their patriotism and their desire to do what they could. These people cried out loudly against the issuing of the war bonds tax free. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of Finance has my sympathy, and I may say to him that I believe, and wish to believe, that we might have received a Budget at this time much better than the one that has been brought down if no artificial difficulties had intervened. fMr. Gould.]
I would now draw the attention of the House to the able address that was made in this debate by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), and I wish to record the fact that I am pleased as a member of this group to have as an associate a man of his abilities, foresight and power of expression. Truly, his abilities are the envy of the House, and when the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) stands in his place and presumes to tell this House that he does not fear the task imposed upon him to reply to the hon. member for Red Deer, in my opinion that was only meant to be read in Hansard and after reading it to find out that the boast was not made good. I regret very much that the Minister of the Interior is not in his place, but he is not to blame for that, of course, because it is Tather extraordinary to be talking at this time of night. There are a few things, however, that I would rather say in his presence than in his absence.
I would direct a few remarks across the Chamber to the Minister of the Interior, perhaps because he directly addressed us "angularly," as he put it, across the floor of the House. Twice did the hon. gentleman refer to the Progressives, or to us who sit behind the hon. member for Red Deer, as being out in the side lines in the townships. Twice did he advise us, or advise the member for Timiskaming, to do certain things. Twice it is also known that he himself visited the same townships, Carle-ton, Victoria, and Timiskaming, and twice it is recorded that he returned humiliated and defeated. And acknowledging his defeat he presumes to tell the Progressive party of this House what to do. Does the hon. gentleman think, after failing to persuade the people out in these electoral districts that he visited that anything he could say here would persuade us who represent these people, that he is on the right track?
I think not, Mr. Speaker. May I inform the hon. gentleman that his story, so far as I am concerned, falls upon deaf ears-
I have listened too long, and I fear I am an unbeliever of his doctrine. The arguments the hon. gentleman presented were based largely upon the findings of a commission that was appointed by the Asquith Government of Great Britain in the year 1916. The report was handed in to the Government in the year 1918. It purported to show, according to the interpretation of the hon. minister, that Great Britain was a decadent nation, and to show the dire state into which agriculture had fallen, and the inanimate status of the iron and steel



3L 1920

[Stage Direction]
industries. And the minister endeavoured to prove that a high protective policy for Great Britain would be her only salvation.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind it appears presumptuous on the part of the minister to think that he should criticize the Government of which right hon. Lloyd George is Premier, and the people of Great Britain who placed him in that position. Well do I remember, in the year of 1918, coincident with the report that was issued by the commission in question, how the high protectionist press of Canada heralded it all over the country that Great Britain would resort to high protective principles. To me, Mr. Speaker, the soft impeachment suggested by the hon. Minister of the Interior on a coalition between the official opposition and ourselves was to be expected, though in his later effort he failed to construct anything on his foundation of sand. Similarly, his charge was almost offensive that there was a proposal of a coalition designed to deceive the people. The idea of any proposal to deceive the people has never entered my mind, and I regret for his sake to believe that such thoughts could and did enter the mind of the minister. I wonder whether this is the first time that such a question has entered the mind of the hon. gentleman. We believe that many hon. members who have listened to his teachings and his doctrines are at present well-nigh persuaded to come out from among his party. It is our cry that they come o-r. from among them. As I have listened to the debate upon this Budget I could not help feeling that this has been a discussion absolutely and entirely on the merits and demerits of the tariff, and that the debate is only a preliminary to that which will take place throughout the whole country. This being so, the time spent in debating the principles of the question has been well spent.
We do object to special privilege and we do argue for equitable distribution of taxation. During the address delivered by the Minister of the Interior he stated that our whole platform and our arguments were designed toward free trade. That statement I wish to repudiate, and I take as my authority 'the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer particularly to two cases, which we consider may be typical of many others in our Dominion of exorbitant protection given to industries. The first one I wish to refer to is the Dominion Textile Co., of whom we have heard the familiar phrase:	"Their
factory was not built for the glory of God but to make money for the shareholders." If I might be permitted to add my sentiments to that phrase I would say it was specially built for the financial exploitation of the people. Protection heralds the cry of increased wages for increased cost, and it is a recorded fact that woollen textiles advanced 80 per cent in price to the consumer. Was the increased cost paid in wages? We will see the schedule:
Groups of Earnings.
		Male.	Female.
Under	$5 per week.. ..	. . 29	74$5 to ill	. .. 292	1,104$10 to	$15	. .. 745	1,047.$15 to	$20	. .. 73S	234$20 to	$25	28Over $25	.. 268	2
Or, in other words, the average wage paid per week to their employees was $12, or $624 per year. Is that schedule any justification of an increase of 80 per cent in their selling price? If we were to deduct 80 per cent, or even 40 per cent of the selling price from the schedule of wages I have given does it not afford an illustrative picture? And this company's privilege is a 30 per cent or 35 per cent protective duty. As regards these gentlemen who built this factory, not for the glory of God but for their own profit, I will say that whatever may be their state of mind, they are undoubtedly dressed in sheep's clothing.
The cotton industry is even worse, where the annual wage paid to employees was $516 per year or $10 per week. What now of their boasted cry of high wages? If high wages were the determining factor along with the advertised fact that there had been greatly increased costs of production, there would have been an accompanying list of the wages paid that would be a proof of the sincerity of their arguments. But never have these companies seen fit to -advise the people and to prove their assertions by such statements.
Allow me to inform the House that the determining factors as regards the salaries paid are: Firstly, the unionism of workers that endeavour to force a living wage from the employers; and, secondly, the supply and demand of those who wish to work and those who wish to employ them. These, Mr. iSpeaker, are in all countries in the world the determining factors of wages paid, and not the amount of the protection that the interests receive from gratuitygiving governments. In this mulcting of the people by the tariff and the greed permitted thereby, the Minister of Finance
[Stage Direction]
assists by further imposing a tax, a tax, Mr. Speaker, which rests primarily on the necessities of life. I would, Sir, give to the House a concrete illustration of the manner in which the necessity becomes a luxury by and through the combination of excessive tariff and the proposed excise tax now brought down by the Minister of Finance.
Let us imagine a pair of shoes made by a United States manufacturer in 1914 and regarded as an actual necessity because of their low cost. These shoes are purchased by the Canadian retailer in 1914 at, let us say, $3 per pair f.o.b. Chicago. The same pair of shoes-still a necessity-made by the same manufacturer in 1920, is purchased by the Canadian retailer, but because of increased production cost, labour, etc., it has increased in cost during the six years by one hundred per cent and is therefore sold to the Canadian retailer in 1920 at $6 per pair f.o.b. Chicago. Now, let us make a comparison between the cost of those shoes in 1914 and in 1920 and let us remember that in view of the price the shoes must still be considered a necessity and not a luxury. Adding to the 1914 Chicago price of $3 a 30 per cent customs tariff, amounting to 90 cents, freight and handling charges 10 cents, you get a cost laid down in Canada of $4. The Canadian retailer adds his profit of 40 per cent or $1.60 and the price to the purchaser in 1914 is $5.60. The price of the same shoes in 1920, f.o.b. Chicago, is $6 and the addition of the customs tariff, amounting to $1.80, freight and handling charges 20 cents, makes the cost laid down in Canad $8. The Canadian retailer adds his profit of 40 per cent, or $3.20 and the price to the purchaser, exclusive of the excise tax, is $11.20. Under our new excise tax ten per cent is added to the cost of what was originally a necessity but which through the customs tariff is placed in the class of luxuries. The $1.12 excise tax making the cost of this necesity to the purchaser in Canada now a luxury with an inflated value of $12.32.
I would now ask tolerance, to inform the House something about this Farmers' platform, particularly in view of the complaint made by the hon. Minister of the Interior during the course of his address. It is within the knowledge of many of the members of this House that during the central portion of the war period many public men and others throughout the Dominion foresaw the reconstruction period, and an institution known as the Canadian Reconstruction Association was formed with Sir John Willi-
[Mr. Gould. 1
son as the head. That board was composed of members of the majority of the big industrial and financial interests of Canada, but mining, agriculture and labour generally were not represented. In their selfsufficiency they ignored the advice; in fact thy desired not the opinion or advice of the factors I have mentioned, and they proceed to educate the people of this country as to their duties during the reconstruction period. Now this titled gentleman, Sii John Willison, who is known to be an able platform man, toured the Dominion and addressed meetings in the most populous business centres, but it was not long until the people of Canada seemed to believe that the whole object of the Canadian Reconstruction Association, as outlined in the policies of its advocate was to do nothing more than propagate in the minds of the people the theories of high protection. Now when a manufacturer appears in the West and presumes to tell the people, those hard-working and sunburnt people of the West, the merits of his protective policy under the guise of the name of the Canadian Reconstruction Association, while they listen, they do not believe.
To-day it seems that the vision had been lost for under the name or guise of the Canadian Reconstruction Association they have for months been singularly quiet. While in session in 1916, the Canadian Council of Agriculture, seeing under the mask of this doughty knight, realizing what the objects of the association were and that the advocacy of its cause -was not in the best interests of Canada, conceived the idea that they would endeavour to frame a platform suitable for all the people of Canada, having particular reference to reconstruction. I wish to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that the platform was not designed for a political party purpose, but as a suggestion to the Government in power as to the best way of meeting the problems of reconstruction. That I am sure of.
I could go on much longer and tell this House of the earnestness displayed by the people of the western plains after their discussions in the local associations. I could make a long story of how they fought it out in their big conventions, how they argued and amended, but when they saw that those who sat in high places ignored all the advice that was tendered in that platform they began to conceive the idea that nothing but their own determination would give to Canada the benefit of this platform whose merit, Mr. Speaker, has been acknowledged by the ablest men and politicians in Canada.

In connection with this story, having particular reference to the silence of the former Canadian Reconstruction Association, I have been interested in an article appearing in the Montreal Gazette of 22nd May, describing a proposed organization to be called the Western Canada Colonization Association. I would not have it understood that I speak in a critical way regarding this, yet I would have it distinctly understood that I do speak in a very questioning manner. As 1 look over the photographs and I read the names of the gentlemen whose photographs appear on this page, I see: Charles R. Hos-mer of The Canadian Cottons; Sir Joseph Flavelle, whose close connection with the Davies Meat Packing Co. we all remember; D. Lome McGibbon, of the Atlantic Sugar Co.; Huntley R. Drummond, of the *Canadian Sugar Co.; Brig. General F. S. Meighen, of the Lake of the Woods Milling Co.; Sir Edmund Osier, banker, and leading high protectionist; Sir Charles Gordon. In connection with this organization a note in the paper says:
The organization will carefully select settlers, welcome them into the country, give them such information and advice as they require, and make of them good Canadians.
All very good if that is their platform, but I wondered why these gentlemen showed such an interest in this matter. It goes on further and says that the Government and the railways are cooperating with this organization in the great national undertaking. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when the plain people ask for something they are ever denied; but when "big business" comes to this House it is received with open arms. The denial that was given to the suggestion of the big steel merger that was brought up in this House some weeks ago is not much in evidence. Might I remark again that When the Bell Telephone Company wished to increase their capitalization by one hundred per cent they found their sponsors ready and willing to tell this House, or to tell the people of Canada, that no harm could result from it. My idea in connection with the steel merger is that it does not merely propose to capitalize the assets of the country in a certain manner, but it does propose to capitalize the taxpaying ability of the people; and in the spirit of prophecy I predict that should this merger really take effect the day is not far distant when-after selling to the people of Canada five, and ten-dollar shares of stock-they will return to the Government and say "Here is public opinion represented
by these shareholders," and they will ask for a bounty or a subsidy. I wish to say to this House that the people are tired of bounties, subsidies,, high protection-tired of broken promises, of profiteering, and graft.
We listened some weeks ago, during an exposition given by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) to the statement that millions of tons of iron ore were in close proximity to the city of Ottawa, and it was stated these ores assayed sixty per cent. A scientist in my office, in connection with the statement that was made by the boo. member, gave me authority to state that thirty-three per cent of iron is a workable basis, and by that I presume is meant that it can be handled at a profit. Well, the hon. gentleman spoke briefly of having a bounty given to some one to work these mmes, but it has occurred to me that the difference between a thirty-three per cent assay which shows a profitable basis and the sixty per cent assay referred to should provide 'dividends enough for any company that wished to go to work diligently and make a profit in that direction.
Now, Mr. Speaker,, I might refer at length to the number of names that have been applied to this party since the House met on the 26th of February. However, I do not wish to dwell upon it. Neither do I wish to say that I am in anything but a good mood because I am prepared to believe -and if the House had as much evidence as I have concerning this matter it would also believe-that the abuse that has been heaped by hon. gentlemen opposite on this little aggressive party during the present session has been the greatest capital for our cause that we could ever have. Hon. gentlemen opposite have made charges and counter charges absolutely without knowledge of the facts, aiming at something and hoping to get a retort from this side that would give them a little capital. We have been called "Bolshevists", "One Big Union", "Agitators", "Reds", "Free Traders", and "Little Canadians". We have been styled "dangerous" not once hut many times, 'and we have also been called "Levites". The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. 'Cockishutt) pictured us as Levites. That hon. gentleman also drew a picture o>f "steers" that was referred to tonight. The picture of the steers reminded me- and I think it also reminded the hon. gentleman-o>f the cartoon that was published hack in 1911 during the reciprocity cam-
[Stage Direction]
paign. I would advise the hon. gentleman, or anyone who speaks in that fashion, that they have altogether a wrong conception of the minds of the people. We are too big-and we were too big in 1911-to be persuaded along the way they wished us to go. When they produce a carto'on purporting to be educating to the people and wish to send it out West they should send something other than the picture referred to- something bigger. That is a piece of advice I wish to give to the hon. member for Brantford.
With reference to the assertion respecting "free trade with Great- Britain" I shall not consider it at any length other than to say this. If my hon. friend's argument holds good, that free trade between Great Britain a.nd Canada would result in free trade with the whole world, why does it not work out that way under the British preference? The hon. gentleman's argument is a bugaboo, something that he fears and is unable to prove. However, the thing that has occurred to me is this: We have been called "Little Canadians," and I have wondered what constitutes a big Canadian. I have wondered, Mr. Speaker, if some of the hon. gentlemen who have made these charges would be considered "Big Canadians"; and I have 'been to some pains to find out wherein I am lacking as a Canadian as compared with any individual who charges me, or any member of my group, with being a "Little Canadian".
Now, I was not in the House when the Budget was brought down, and I did not have the opportunity of hearing a number of the speeches both for and against the high protectionist Budget of the Government-a Government that promises tariff revision downwards in spite of the statements of men like the Minister of the Interior, who tells us that some other countries have been almost ruined by looking in the direction of lower tariffs. But I (found much interest in reading in Hansard several of the speeches delivered in this debate, and among them I may say the deliverances of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. 'Stevens), of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mir. Mowat), and of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, B.C. (Mr. Stacey), interested me immensely. It was not, perhaps, so much what these hon. members said as the fact that these three, this 'significant trinity of kindred spirits in Union Government, represent three distinct schools of thought in this House, and

when we see the spectacle of this trio lying down together with the sheep and the goats and the lambs within the protected fold of the Union Government-over whose destinies the big interests of this country are watching with such zealous care and solicitude-it is time, I believe, that some private member of this House should draw attention to the peculiar combination that, in the minds of the people who know, must take on a three-faced external appearance, with but the one bleeding, patriotic hpart beating beneath the bosoms of the three. On the one hand, we have the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, whose widespread far-reaching, diversified interests in the country are said to extend from the operation of newspapers, of dredging companies and Government dredging contracts, of lumber and canning mills and factories on the far Pacific ocean-
Mr. STEVEN'S: Does the hon. member suggest that I personally am interested in the businesses which he has mentioned?
Oliver Robert Gould: Oh, these are interests out there. You are not interested in farming in the fruit country; you come from a country where all these things-
Mr. -STEVEN'S:	I am asking the hon.
gentleman a question, if he will permit me: Does he suggest that I am personally interested in these businesses?


Oliver Robert Gould: No, I do not say so-Now let me continue where I left off when interrupted-to the ownership of newspapers, of grain elevators, of stock 'food dispensaries along the broad prairies, to catch up again with terminal- elevators, dredging companies, steamboats, etc., when the head of the Lakes is reached, speaking to this House as the pure and undefiled Tory of the old school of forty years ago. During all these forty years of the National Policy his confidence in it seems never to have wavered, and he tells the House to-day that he supports it as did his grandfather, perhaps, at the time of its inception.
The National Policy of this and other Governments, seemingly, has been good to the interests in the country with which is connected the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Under it great lumber mills, large dredging companies, immense terminal elevators, and even Tory newspapers, have grown up and prospered through the benign influence of this policy, -and in the days when the people of this country, after forty years of it, have come to the conclu-

sion that the protective policy as a developer and a populator of Canada has failed to populate and has failed to develop, except in some remote cases of which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre might tell this House, my hon. friend, knowing as he must the sum total of what this protective system has done for Canada, has the temerity to rise here and sing the praises of a Government and a policy that, if we may judge by the census figures of Canada, its huge national debt, and the trade returns for a no later period than the month of April last, is little less than throttling the legitimate and natural growth of the whole Dominion. Truly we can put the first member of this strange trinity I have mentioned down as Faith. I am not going to even suggest that it is misplaced faith on his part, for who knows but himself the extent of the ramifications of the interests for which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre speaks in the province from whence he comes and so ably represents in this House.
Then we have the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Mowat). For this same forty years, up'to quite recently, the hon. member for Parkdale, could find neither hope nor virtue in the protective tariff. His despair began, it seems, about the time of its inception, when .a great man named Mowat was Prime Minister of the great province of Ontario, a man who at times was prone to dispute with the father of the protective system in Canada certain constitutional rights with respect to the province of which he was guardian for so many years, and who, because of his staunch loyalty to principle and right and justice, earned from the Tories like the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and from some other hon. members of this House who were always Tory, always will be, just about the same kind of criticism as we hear levelled to-day at the men of this little Progressive party and others who think as we do, and who today are carrying on the same fight against class and privilege and injustice to the common people as did the illustrious forbear of the hon. member for Parkdale some thirty or forty years ago.
This is a free country, oif course, and men are privileged to change their minds. Some men change their minds from conviction, and some because in changing sometimes the way is better paved to get a seat in Parliament-the seat that could never had been secured unless there was a change of heart. But I am constrained to
ask this House and this country, what would the late Sir Oliver Mowat say-the man who helped to lead Sir Wilfrid Laurier to victory under the motto " Laurier, Mowat and Victory"-if that sterling old Liberal were privileged to-day to look down upon the wayward namesake, the hon. member for Parkdale, who in his declining years of a rather chequered and unfortunate political career finds it necessary to swallow the Protectionist Budget. It seems to me I have heard a story of an occasion that in this particular, might interest the honourable member for Fronte-nac, (Mr. Edwards), I tell this story chiefly because one of the figures in it happened to be a certain Joseph Haycock, at one time leader of a Farmers' party in Ontario and a rival, I understand, of the hon. member for Frontenac when he was much younger than he is to-day. It seems to me that I have read somewhere among the political reminiscences of the county of Frontenac and of Joe Haycock that on a certain occasion, when he was chided by a certain speaker, then much younger than to-day, for having changed his political coat, remarked that ''a man sometimes changes his mind, but a donkey never will." Perhaps the hon. member for Frontenac has heard that story before, perhaps indeed he may have been present on the occasion. A't any rate, to give due credit to the hon. member for Parkdale for his eleventh-hour repentance, it cannot be Charged against him that he has not changed his mind, no matter what the reason for the change. We do not have to go back very far for a record of the political affiliations of the hon. member for Parkdale. Even as late as 1911, he was, I understand, a supporter of free trade and lower tariff, and, if I mistake not, the good offices of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, with whom the elder Mowat served with such distinction, were at that same time put forth to secure for the hon. member for Park-dale a seat in this House from among the past protectionist province of Ontario that has sent to this House during these forty past years so many Tories that, to give credit where credit is due, might be placed in the category given by the late lamented Joseph Haycock to those who' never change their minds. Not being fully conversant with the various events in the political history of the hon. member for Park-dale during all these long years in Ontario, of his struggles and hardships in the midst of the Ontario Tories who have seemingly taken him to their fold, not being acquainted

who own tall chimneys in protectionist Toronto and big lumber mills on the Pacific coast, while the hon. member	for Fraser Valley	and the
hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) utter a sort of a benediction as we begin our journey down to Jericho and a prayer that no danger may meet us on the way, juet ,so long as we can keep paying the prices demanded by the implement factories of Parkdale and the lumber mills of British Columbia and have enough left to shell out the 30 cents per box on apples that tends to keep the wolf from the door of the friends of the hon. member for Fraser river-no matter whether or not the same wolf howls about the door of every prairie farmer in Western Canada. No "class legislation" ifor these three. Surely Shylock, in all his larvorice, would never have exemplified (anything like that. Shylock did not boast of such big, broad Nationalism as is so frequently and loudly proclaimed here, while the action is denied.
We were advised that the hon. member for Fraser Valley had saved the prairie farmer from the clutches of the Nash fruit interests and had given the poor, downtrodden prairie farmer cheap fruit at about 45 cents a box for berries and something like $15 a barrel for No. 1 British Columbia apples. But a closing "Amen" from our high protectionist friends will give the proper color to the end of a little tragedy in which another erring brother has joined with the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) and in the anxiety to swallow the Tory doctrine as graciously as possible, despite the groanings, the cries and the supplications the Minister of the Interior has told us about, has taken freely of the hook, line and sinker without making even an unpleasant face.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that each one of this trinity described before, represents a distinct and different commodity for which the western farmer is the chief customer, it might be of interest in this House to outline some of the conditions under which the farmer purchases the commodities involved in the transactions. Let me take them one by one.
Let me for a moment refer to the question of the agricultural implements turned out of the factory under the smoking tall chimneys in the riding of my hon. friend from Parkdale-^chimneys that smoke only when the farmers buy, and whose temperatures, when the farmers don't buy, descend to a degree about in keeping with the political reception my hon. friend received at the

hands of his admirers in the large number of ridings in which he was a candidate up to 1917. The hon. member for Parkdale in his speech the other day cited as one of his reasons why he should support this protectionist budget of his friends, that the Massey-Harris Co. shipped their machines as far west as Medicine Hat, presumably to sell to the farmer whose cause in this House finds no merit in the eyes of protectionist members, and that that company had given millions of dollars in credit	to those	same	farmers.
It is	admitted, for the sake of
argument, that the farmers did get a good deal of credit from the implement companies in the West. If the farmers had not, then, in the absence of any intelligent conception of successive Protectionist governments as to what the West really needed in order to populate it, the chances are that many a farmer would have been unable to	start	in the
farming business. But I understand, too, that when the war broke out, the implement companies in Canada had out in Germany some seven millions of dollars in credit which had (been given to the Germans; and, when we take into consideration the fact that the Germans were given credit and probably sold their implements cheaper than they were sold to the farmers of this country in which these same companies have enjoyed protection for over forty years, surely it is not expecting too much to ask that the Canadian farmers be given at least the same credit as was extended to the Germans.
But did any one in the West ever hear of an implement company giving a farmer any credit on his farm machinery unless that company was amply protected in the way of security? I do not think so. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, who, I understand, has had some little experience with newspapers at Vancouver, if not at Winnipeg, will probably understand that when a representative of a printing machinery company sells a machine to a newspaper, that machine is sold on a lien that affects only the machine in question, and that the accompanying notes carry an interest of somewhere from 6 to 8 per cent. But what about the machinery of the farmer? That's a different matter. When a farmer, on the other hand, in the past has wanted to buy a machine of some kind lie has had to give a lien note of the same kind, but he has had to pay anywhere from 9 to 15 per cent interest on that note, and, besides holding a chattel mortage on the machine in quest-

ion, it has not been the fault of the implement agent if he did not secure a mortage in addition on all the stock and other machinery on the farm, and, if the farmer was not keenly alert, a blanket mortage on the whole old homestead.
The heart of the hon. member for Park-dale need not bleed for4,he poor implement companies. They have usually been able to take care of their own interests, and when they cannot do it, then any individual member of this House is wasting his time when he ventures to fear for the future and safety of the factories with the tall smoking chimneys in the protectionist constituencies of Toronto. Those chimneys, let me say, will smoke just as long as there are farmers in this country to purchase implements and no longer, and, if my hon. friend would consider the real interests of his capitalistic friends, he might better employ his time in this House in devising ways and means to increase the number of farmers and to increase the prosperity of those already on the land, knowing as he must know that the greater the number of farmers and the greater their prosperity, the greater the volume of smoke that will be emitted from the tall chimneys in Park-dale. I do not desire at this time in any way to minimize the consideration given the farmers by some of the implement companies. That would be unjust, and it is not the method we have of doing business among the farmers. All we desire is a square deal, a fifty-fifty split, and I am satisfied that that kind of an arrangement will be of just as much benefit to the implement companies, many of whom neither need nor desire a continuance of protection. But, in case the members of this House do not know it, I want to tell them that the provincial governments of both Alberta and Saskatchewan a few years ago found it necessary to place upon the statute hooks of those provinces legislation which would prevent the implement companies from selling implements to the farmers under agreements that not only loaded the farmer with implements, but virtually gave these companies a blanket mortgage on everything the farmer owned. It might be of further interest to this House, particularly to the member for Parkdale, to know that the man who framed that legislation, first in Alberta and later in Saskatchewan, was none other than the late Hon. A. G. Mackay, a lifelong friend, I believe, of another public man called Mowat, who in his declining years was found steadfast in
the faith that he had helped to inculcate in the late Mr. Mackay, and perhaps to some extent in his distinguished and hon. relative of the same name who occupies a seat in this House. It may be of further interest to this House to know that because he framed that legislation, Mr. Mackay in a subsequent by-election was the target for attack on the part of representatives of the implement companies who were having their credit extensions curtailed in the interests of the farmers, and that, despite their opposition, he was elected to the Alberta legislature. I would advise my hon. friend to desist shedding any crocodile tears for the oppressed, down-trodden, self-sacrificing implement companies. Rather might he keep them for the farmers who have to pay the price of the machine, plus the duty-an amount vastly increased during the past few years, despite the statements of the Minister of the Interior, who first spoke of having reduced the duty, then pleaded the cause of high protection, and thirdly and finally told us of the reduced pressure and benefit the cutting off of per cent would have. Some somersault and swallowing all in one address! And he might keep some of his tears, too, for the workingmen consumers in his own constituency who will pay much of the taxation of this Government, while the capitalists who own the factories with the tall chimneys will contribute but very little. And, if he has any tears left, let him keep them for himself and his colleagues for, unless all signs fail, there will be enough political funerals in the protectionist party at the next election, both in the rural districts and in the cities, to keep a multitude of mourners busy shedding tears for a considerable time. There does not seem to be much hope even for the member of the trinity who has been designated by the name of Hope. The position of my hon. friend from Fraser Valley is somewhat different, yet I can scarcely think that there is much hope, or that there should be much charity, for the man who will virtually place a price of 30 cents a box on his political convictions. As I have said, compared with his confreres, he appears to have sold out cheap, conducted a sort of bargain sale, as it were. However, as he has told this house that his market is to be among the prairie farmers, perhaps we on the prairie have some cause to raise our humble voices in supreme praise when he starts his protectionist dogma, and offer our devout thanks that his fruit growing friends in British Columbia did not insist on some-

thing like 47 per cent tariff on valuation, as are the textile and other interests supporting the protectionist Budget of this Government.
But, if my hon. friend imagines that he has the Western Canadian fruit market free to himself without interference from the Nash fruit interests, which he so greatly fears, then he has made a grave error. As a matter of fact, he must know, as most of us do on the prairies, that it is a combine that sets the price of fruit in Western Canada, that this combination would at times rather see the fruit destroyed than sell it cheap to the long-suffering public on the prairies that is denied fruit altogether except at exorbitant prices. And let me tell him this, that if the fruit farmers of his province ever hope to overcome the ramifications of that combine, if they ever hope to get for their fruit a price consistent with what the prairie pulblic pays for that fruit, then he will have to join the movement, of farmers, and he will have to provide for co-operation like his brother fruit farmers have found to be absolutely necessary in the marketing of their wheat, in order to protect themselves from those interests in respect to which perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver Centre could enlighten his neighbour from Fraser Valley. Rightly or wrongly, I might liken my friend in this House to Charity, but I want to tell him he will find very little charity in the marketing of his fruit until he places the marketing and selling of it in the hands of the men who grow it. And he will find that because he compels the prairie farmers, through a tariff, to pay an additional 30 cents a box for his products, he has not solved the problem so far as he and his neighbours are concerned. And I would like to tell him here and now that the best market for his British Columbia fruit will be found in the prairies, not because he tries to shove it down our throats with a thirty cent tariff tax, but because he can get it to us at the right price and in the Tight condition. After that, if he expects his prosperity out of the farmers on the prairies, I would suggect to him now that, if he will vote for the square deal for those farmers and relieve them from some of the economic bondage that the member for Red Deer outlined here the other day, then the population of that country will double and treble, and with it will come a doubling and trebling of the volume of British Columbia fruit consumed by its people.
The same thing may be said to the hon. member for Parkdale. If he wants the in-

dustries to grow, if he desires the smoke to continue from the tall chimneys, give the man who has to buy and use the implements manufactured a fair chance. The farmers of our country do not want it all; they do not want to destroy any Canadian industry. On the other hand, they desire to build up Canadian industries to see them grow and expand, to see them pay good wages, employ large numbers of men, and supply the bulk of the consumers of Canada. But that cannot be done by a tariff that throttles the great basic industry of this country, upon which all others depend. It can only be done by increasing the farmers and their prosperity, and by putting them in the position where they are substantial customers for the products of the manufacturing plants of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, let me now refer briefly to another point that I find involved in connection with the numerous interlocking interests as represented by the speeches of the three members whom I have mentioned. Let me give a wrord to the member for Vancouver Centre and the interests which he represents in this House. I am told that they are newspaper, shipping, dredging, canning, lumbering, and elevator, terminal and otherwise. But it is to the lumbering industry that I desire to particularly refer, because we in the West just now have an outstanding illustration of just what tariff protection has done for the lumber business of British Columbia. Just as long as I can remember the British Columbia lumber men have claimed a tariff on lumber because they declared they need it in order to build up a Canadian industry and to prevent unfair competition from Washington and Oregon to the south. Sometimes they got what they wanted, and sometimes they did not. But for many long years there has been more or less duty on lumber, and every homesteader who has gone into the West to build his little shack, every workingman who has constructed his little cottage, and every business mam who has ventured .to build, has. gone down in his pocket and has paid tribute more or less in the shape of tariff protection to the lumber mills of British Columbia, for which, I presume, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre speaks in this House. Not being in favour of protection, I did not favour it. And there were others of the same mind. But we all had to pay, and among those who did pay were thousands of men and women who believed in building up Canadian industry and thought they were assisting it when they kept on the tariff.


Herbert John Mackie: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Oliver Robert Gould: Yes.


Herbert John Mackie: How much longer is your chimney going to smoke?


Oliver Robert Gould: Fifteen or twenty minutes longer. Why, do you not like it? Things went on, and the prairie supplied the only market these lumber mills had. The prairies virtually built up their industry. Yet w-hat do we see to-day? We find that, in spite of the protection given toy the people of Western Canada for these long years, the lumber kings do not give a snap of their fingers for the welfare of the people who gave them that protection. We find the mills, on the other hand, would rather sell their product to the Italians, to the Germans, to anybody outside of the prairies, provided the foreigners can pay a higher price than the prairie farmers and the workingmen of Western Canada can afford to pay. We find, indeed, that the Canadian price to-day is not only a hundred per cent higher than it was five or six years ago, because these protected mills are shipping abroad, but we in the West also find that the Canadian price is a price actually based on the value of Canadian money plus the American exchange. That is one sample of just how much one protected industry cares for the interests of the people who give it protection.
In Regina, Winnipeg, Calgary, Saskatoon, and every other city, thousands of men and women, hard-working Canadians, are clamouring for some place to live, but they can find none because the price of building material, lumber among the others, is out of all reason. The man who has fought overseas has in many cases returned to Canada, frequently with his bride and more frequently still having married a Canadian wife; and these young people find themselves virtually without a roof over their heads, with a cold wintet staring them in the face, and there is no relief in sight for thousands of people who will need accommodation when the first of next November comes. Does anybody hear of any suggestion of relief from the protected lumber interests. Not much! The trade with foreign countries goes merrily on, and these patriots who a few years ago needed the protection of the Canadian people to enable them to build up Canadian industry care, no more for the protection of the Canadian people who were generous to them than if these Canadian people never existed and never had a right. To show the ideas that are entertained by
men engaged in the lumbering industry, I have haTe a clipping which contains certain statements that are credited to Mr. A. E. Clarke, a prominent lumber man, who stated in Toronto, recently that even if the cost of production were to decrease at once lumber prices would not begin to come down for another two years. A telegram from Prince Albert intimated that prices there had increased 85 per cent in the last twelve months, with nothing like a corresponding increase in the cost of production.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Prince Albert is not in British Columbia.


Oliver Robert Gould: No.
Mr. STEVENiS: It is in Saskatchewan.


Oliver Robert Gould: Yes. But that is not all. If any member of this House has been following the proceedings of a certain inquiry concerning lumber operations in the province of Ontario, he will have learned that a number of these lumbermen did not even pay their honest dues to the Government that gave them privileges, thus touching the public, both going and coming. And, strange as it may appear, many of these ultra-iloyalists, the Divine Righters,-I am not referring to the press gallery-who needed the protection of the Canadian people to enable them to build up Canadian industries, to keep the trade away from the Yankees, are turning out to be Americans and not Canadians at all. I do not think any one in this House will accuse the farmers of being Bolsheviki in their tendencies. I do not think any one will say that we believe in seizing governments by unconstitutional means, as was charged in connection with the Winnipeg strike. Personally, I harbour no such belief. But at the same time I want to tell this Government that if this wholesale plundering of the people is not stopped, if the working people are to be deprived of places to live, while millionaire lumbermen demand the protection of the Canadian people and at the same time sell to foreigners cheaper than to their own people, and on top of that virtually rob the state of a large portion of the dues they should pay for their lumber, then this Government has not enough police in Canada to quiet the riots that will surely follow. T noticed by a statement in this House some time ago that this Government spent no less than $154,000 in costs to prosecute the Winnipeg strikers. That is a large sum, but perhaps it may have been well spent if it has taught this Government a



lesson that the producers of this country have come to the point where they are going to demand a square deal, that the burden be removed from the shoulders of the poor and placed where it properly belongs, and that the manufacturers of Canadian lumber, implements and other things, have to play fair with the people whom they serve. If that is not done, then all the eloquence of the hon. member for Barkdale, of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre and of the hon, member for Fraser River will not prevent the people of this country from taking matters into their own hands to see that there shall be equity and justice all round.	.
I am only a young member of this House, and my experience and acquaintance is therefore limited. But in the short time 1 have been here the most remarkable thing that has impressed itself upon my mind is the number of members who sit in this House on the Government side and virtually plead for the special interests and the special business in which they are engaged. It is, to my mind, no particular crime for a member of this House to place before it the importance of his business if he has a good one, and to try to remove from the conduct of that business, if it he legitimate, any handicaps that may be placed upon it by government legislation. That is fair politics and' fair business, hut when manufacturers -and men representing special interests in the country labor day after day in this House to extract special privileges from the government of this country and place the cost of those privileges upon the shoulders of the people of Canada, particularly upon the farmers, I am constained as an agriculturist to voice my emphatic protest.
Let me show the members of this house just how it works out so far as the agriculturist is concerned. Let me show those who have no interest to serve in this house save the interests of the people just how it works out. Let me suppose that I am a farmer and I want to embark upon farming within the prairie provinces. If I desire tb build a little shack to keep out the cold, before I can do so I must pay some kind of a tariff upon the lumber secured from the friends of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre on the Pacific coast. If I get the shack and venture to exist, when I want a little fruit for breakfast, as is the wont of the well-fed manufacturers of this country, I must contribute something in the shape of tariff to make up the thirty cents per box that has brought about the political conversion of the hon. member for Fraser
 .
Valley, (Mr. Stacey). If, after breakfast, 1 staTt out to break up the homestead, I must first hand over something in the shape of a tariff on plows to my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). If I manage, in spite of all these handicaps, and all the uncertain elements, such as drouth, hail frost, and grasshoppers, to get something on the farm to cut, before I can cut it I must make a little donation in the shape of tariff on a hinder for the benefit of the tall chimneys of Parkdale so ably represented in this House by my hon. friend from that constituency. If it so happens that, after a hard day's work, I need something in the shape of canned fruit to add something in the shape of spice to my frugal meal before I can enjoy that fruit I must pass along a little handout to the can-ners combine of this country, whose peaoh cans I have thought contain as much water as the stock, of the company that finds such an able exponent in this House in the hon. Member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor). If I happen to be fortunate enough to secure all these things, and get a crop besides, and desire to start out t-o haul that crop to market in the fall, before I am ready for the road and the cold, I must have some underwear to withstand the frost, but before I can secure it I find I must make some little contribution to the interests which send to this House the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for Haldimand, the latter of whom, representing the dual interests of canners and knitters, also carries on a sort of a dual woollen business on both sides of the 'international boundary, and insists that I shall pay him a tariff when I buy his Canadian woollens, presumably to enable his Canadian factory to compete with his woollen mill across the line in the United States.
Should I happen to get through all this, and get the hired man started on his journey with a load of wheat to the elevator, if the wagon breaks down and I need a common, ordinary nail. I find that before the conveyance can be repaired or the trousers of the hired man hooked up in lieu of a button, we must go down and dig up something in the shape of a tariff tax for the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Elkin), who also has announced his conversion to a policy that, if I mistake not, is designed to maintain the protection on common nails, which will enter into the construction cost of every house and shack on the prairies during, perhaps, the next forty years.

But, if after all these taxes and misfor-tunates and handouts, the hired man manages to get his wheat to the elevator, if it happens that a farmer's elevator is not at that point, I find that I must sell my product at the price dictated by Liverpool and under the local conditions laid down by the elevator friends of the hon. member for Vancouver centre. Admitting that I get my wheat sold and a car of it on the way, I find that when it reaches the head of the Lakes or the Pacific Coast, it must again enter the storage terminals of the friends of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre or of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer), and be stored there and shipped out under the conditions imposed by the elevator interests represented by these two gentlemen. And, if my grain happens to have a considerable amount of screenings, etc., due perhaps to the fact of the high cost of implements with which to clean it, I find that the stock food friends of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre purchase my screenings at their own price and at their own terms, make out of it fodder for my stock and ship it back to me and sell to me my own product at their own prices and upon their own terms. Upon the big volume of my wheat product, if it is to go down the lakes, I find that the moment it is read for shipment, it is placed on board the steamships of the interests represented so ably, and so infrequently, in this house by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol), whose company, according to a statement I heard here a few weeks ago, started out with five millions in capital eight years ago and now has a plant that is being put into the big merger at an approximate valuation of $45,500,000.
Going a little further with my deductions, carrying the process to that logical conclusion that, in spite of everything, will eventually find a large number of farmers, after paying all these numerous tributes to the interests, in the shadow of the poorhouse, out on the street, as it were, I find that, if without a railw'ay pass on which so many representatives of the interests travel, the farmer who goes broke must go down in his empty pocket, before he takes to the ties, and pay something in the shape of a tariff tax on boots to the interests represented in this House by the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Scott), and so ably sponsored for so long in Parliament by that eminent capitalist, Sir Herbert Ames, who has been carrying the glories of protected Canada to the impoverished peoples of darkest Europe.
188J
I might go on and enlighten the House still further about the ramifications, both in this House and this country, of the interests to which the farmers of this country must pay tribute in some shape or form. If carried to a conclusion, there is absolutely no limit in this respect. But I will, go no farther than to say that if the farmer of the prairie ships his wheat to Port Arthur before it can reach the Atlantic it must pass through the harbours that are-kept clear by the dredges of the capitalistic friends of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and if he ships it to the Pacific coast, it must pass through the harbours kept clear by the capitalistic friends of that hon. member. And, if I protest, if I complain of this multitude of tariff and other taxes, and of the conditions imposed upon me, the capitalistic friends of the hon. friend for Vancouver Centre have a newspaper at Vancouver and another at Winnipeg to tell both the public and myself that I do not know what I am talking about, and that I should be happy and contented under the spreading and protective mantle which they have thrown about me. The conditions which I have just outlined I would like to impress upon the mind of the Hon. Minister of the Interior. He is a Western man, though I regret to say that many years ago he forfeited any right he ever had to speak on behalf of the western people who have helped to make himself and others.of his colleagues from the West. But there is a story going the rounds today, the truth of which I am in no position to confirm or deny, that he is angling f t the Conservative; the Unionist or the Torv leadership, and that the capitalistic friends of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre are prepared to back him in his aspirations. What the outcome will be no one knows, but let me, through you, Mr. Speaker, put to the Minister of the Interior, who was so profuse with his questions in this House the other day, the plain query, whether or not, in the event of his succeeding to the leadership of the Tory party and the premiership of this Canada of ours, is he going to represent in this House the plain people of Canada or the capitalistic friends of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre?
One thing more that has occurred to my mind because of the remarks in this House by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). He told us the other day that while the cotton interest, the textile and

other big protected interests, were not touched by the new taxation, while they contribute nothing new and little old, while the long-suffering consumer must pay the whole shot, these beneficent industries designed ito build up a great country and an army of happy, contented Canadian people, were actually paying their thousands of employees who make the commodities that we have been buying at such exorbitant prices, the munificent wage of something like $550 per annum. Let me put the question to the Minister of the Interior, as a western man who has done some denouncing of men who went on strike, let me ask him: does he think any man or woman in this country, or in his own cold section of Canada can live on $550 per annum-can they live in Winnipeg, in Montreal or in Valleyfield on $550 per annum, and still be healthy and decent? Let* me ask him is he in favour of further protection to textile industries that show surpluses on watered stock of millions of dollars annually, and. pay their men and women the magnificent, princely wage of $550 per annum? Let me ask him, too, does he tnink all his pleadings, his hair-splitting and his legal briefs can prevent the spread of discontent among the men and women who receive such wages and see such profits if this system is to be protected? And let me say to my hon. friend from Fraser Valley (Mr. Stacey) -who I honestly and sincerely believe would extend, the sympathetic hand,-let me ask him does he think any woman in these days can remain healthy and decent and sufficiently well-clothed to withstand the cold on a wage of $550 per annum?


Herbert John Mackie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has been reading the whole of his speech.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the point of order is well taken. The rule is very clear, and the hon. gentleman has certainly violated it most flagrantly.


Oliver Robert Gould: I am not- in the habit of reading my speeches, but I thought tonight I would change my procedure because it has been such a common practice of late in the House. However, I will endeavour to continue my remarks without reading the manuscript.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman is at perfect liberty to refer to his notes. He will also recall the circumstance that the rule on the subject is very clear, and when the attention of the Chair is directed to a

violation of it no other course is open than to decide in accord with the established practice of the House.


Oliver Robert Gould: I will abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I have brought my remarks very nearly to a close but I wish to make a reference to a subject 'I spoke on before-a matter of railway extension. It would seem that when anything is desired from the Government it is very difficult for one to obtain it. I have pleaded in committee. I have pleaded in the House and I have pleaded by letter, to have a short stretch of nine miles of railway built through my district to carry sixty million tons of coal that we in the western plains want, and want badly, and for the lack of which hundreds of people are suffering each winter. The coal is there, and we would like to have it released and carried to the homes where it is needed. The construction of nine miles of railway will permit that coal to come out, and yet it seems we are to be denied. I quote this only as another illustration of why there is unrest throughout the country. The people read of big interests and the influence which they exercise. These interests say, "We will form a $500,000,000 steel merger, and we will come and ask Parliament for a double capitalization on this, that and the other thing," and always some one rises to speak in their behalf. I speak for the people in my district, and it seems a hard thing to be denied this little matter. The release of the coal in question will bring revenue to our own lines of railway. The thing that we need more than anything else in this country, in view of the deficit upon our railway operations is revenue. I know of no other business that will produce such a revenue to our railway system in that part of the West as the release and the carriage to its destination of that coal will bring. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) has also made a plea with respect to this matter, and therefore it cannot be charged that it has become political in any sense at all. My hon. friend knows the circumstances as well as I do. He has already pleaded for the construction of the small stretch of railway necessary to bring this coal out, and I desire to supplement his plea. My people are very much in earnest regarding this matter, and I want to say that in our part of the country the Government could not do a more popular thing than to listen, once at least, to the pleadings of the plain people. I have come here to speak for them, and I think if the Government fully understood the conditions,



JUNE 1. 1920

[Stage Direction]
I would not have to make so many repeated requests to have this simple justice done for my people.
The man from Assiniboia has spoken.
Mr. STEIN:: On behalf of the Opposition I beg to move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 1.45 a.m. (Tuesday.)
Tuesday, June 1, 1920.